Contrasting views of business students’ writing needs in an EFL environment

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

Contrasting views of business students’ writing needs in an EFL environment Nahla Nola Bacha

a,1

, Rima Bahous

b,*

a

b

Lebanese American University, P.O. Box 36, Byblos, Lebanon Lebanese American University, P.O. Box 13 5053 (18F), Chouran Beirut 1102 2801, Lebanon

Abstract This paper reports on a study of business student and faculty views at the Lebanese American University as to the students’ language proficiency levels, writing in particular, and what the specific writing needs are in order for students to be effective in their course work. The role of the English and business faculty is also investigated. English for specific purposes (ESP) research has indicated that although both faculty and students consider writing skills important, students’ English proficiency is not always up to the level needed to cope with the various writing genres required. Helping students raise their writing proficiency level has been the role of the English teacher; however, recent research in the field shows that students would benefit from the cooperation between the business and English faculty towards this end. Findings indicate that students perceive their writing skills as more satisfactory than faculty do, differ on what writing tasks are necessary, but agree that both the business and English faculty should cooperate in the teaching of English. Implications are drawn for ongoing cooperation in the teaching/learning of writing between the business discipline and the English as a Foreign language classroom. Ó 2007 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Over the past few decades, researchers and practitioners have been emphasizing how the teaching and learning of English in universities where English is a Foreign language *

1

Corresponding author. Tel.: +961 1 811 968x1116; fax: +961 1 867098. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.N. Bacha), [email protected] (R. Bahous). Tel.: +961 9 547256x2324; fax: +961 9 547256.

0889-4906/$30.00 Ó 2007 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.05.001

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

75

can best help students to perform more successfully in their disciplines (used interchangeable in this study with majors) and professional contexts (Adams & Keene, 2000; Herrington & Moran, 1992; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Johns, 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Leki, 2003b, Seshadri & Theye, 2001; Swales & Mustafa, 1984, among others). A wealth of studies indicate that English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Programs can no longer be ‘ivory towers’ divorced from the rest of the disciplines but have an important role in helping to initiate students into the academic community in acquiring not only the language proficiency necessary but the specific genres pertaining to these communities (Bacha, 2003; Bhatia & Candlin, 2000; Canagarajah, 2002; Duff, 2001; Johns, 2003a, 2003b; Mukattash, 2003; Nickerson, Gerritsen, & Meurs, 2005, Swa, 1990; Zhu, 2004, among others). Jackson’s (2005, p. 305) remark quite succinctly sums up the status of EFL Programs in that ‘‘Simpler more traditional language support courses may no longer be adequate in today’s complex world.’’ Investigation has also focused on disciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching of English. Research results have indicated student gains in programs designed according to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in which collaboration and team teaching between the English and concerned discipline faculty have taken on significant dimensions in the students’ language acquisition and literacy for a purpose (Creese, 2000; Flowerdew, 1990; Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Gardner, 2003; Haynes, 2002; Johns & Swales, 2002; Jones, Turner, & Street, 1999; Jordan, 1997; Leki, 2003b; OWL, 2003; Richards, 1996; Street & Verhoeven, 2001; Warschauer, 2002). This is all well and good and much has been learned and practiced. However, how do we teachers, as Johns (2005) questions, come to terms with the increasingly complex nature of literacies in the academic community and how do we help our students? It is a fact that our students must cope with multi-literacies (e.g. visual and auditory modes) along with the ‘traditional’ skills (Johns, 2003a; Kress, 2000; Leki, 2003a). It is also a fact that faculty and students often question the emphasis that we English language teachers place on the language skills in our classrooms and on tasks that often may not be relevant to the students’ majors. In the search for better English teaching/learning methods, researchers, and teachers have long found needs analysis studies valuable for effective ESP program design, development, implementation, and assessment; helping us to understand what students need to learn and what teachers need to teach (e.g. Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; DudleyEvans & Swales, 1980; Jackson, 2005; Leki, 2003a; West, 1994). Importantly, investigating views of faculty (as well as those of students’) in the disciplines has given insight into the students’ academic literacy levels as well as the necessary writing tasks for the major (see Zhu, 2004 for summary). Zhu (2004, p. 32) states An examination of content course professors’ views on academic writing and writing instruction could shed light on some of the beliefs underlying writing practices and instruction in content courses, which in turn could provide useful information for academic literacy instruction in the EAP context. Due to the significance of language in the business profession, there has been increasing emphasis in ESP in this area over recent years to better assess students’ needs (see review of the literature). The aim of this study is to obtain the business faculty and students’ views of the writing level and needs of the students at the Lebanese American University. Specifically, it is a

76

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

comparative investigation into the (1) relative importance of the language skills, (2) students’ language ability, mainly in writing, (3) written business task requirements, and (4) role of both the English and business faculty. The study, thus, is an inquiry into purposeful English teaching directed towards learners’ writing needs in the business discipline, which could be a significant contribution since, to the researchers’ knowledge, it has not been done in this context. This research was conceived as a response to the continued comments over the years by the business students that they do not really see the relevance and thus the need to take the required University English courses. In addition, many business faculty have complained that their students’ language skills are weak and that the English Program should do something about improving their English proficiency. The researchers wanted to investigate this situation and the need for an English for Specific Business Purposes approach which could eventually lead to the development of new courses and materials. 2. Review of literature 2.1. Importance of the writing skill in the business major There is no denying the dominance of English in today’s world and as a lingua franca of the international business scene. The importance of writing, especially genres such as e-mail, advertisements, letters, meetings, and reports which require proficiency in written communication cannot be overestimated (Bacha, 2003; Campbell, 2002; McLeod, 2002; Nickerson, 2005). In the university context, however, it is well known that faculty have a higher view of the importance of the writing skill for more successful achievement levels than do students (Bacha, 2003, Campbell, 2002; Jackson, 2005; Schott Karr, 2001). Campbell (2002, p. 1) reports that Motivating business . . . students in a writing class is often difficult. . . . Many students do not even think writing is that important – at least not in the ‘real’ or ‘content’ courses such as economics and accounting . . . or do not see clearly how it relates to their degree or future career. In the same vein, Schott Karr (2001, p. 1) emphasizes the importance of writing for the students’ career. ‘‘Business writing will continue to be valued by recruiters and hiring professionals, who believe a person’s ability to write well can help him or her move up the corporate ladder.’’ Seshadri and Theye (2001) note the importance of the writing skill for effective communicative skills and success. In a study they carried out in a Midwestern University, USA comparing faculty and business professionals’ ratings of students’ writing, results indicated that although the business professionals focused more on the product than the process (e.g. language, organization, style), ‘good’ writing, contrary to what students think, was considered very significant to success by faculty and surprisingly also by the business professionals. The study is important as it gives insight into how faculty should prepare their students for the business world. The authors conclude that ‘‘Business communication professors, to better prepare business students to succeed in the business world, should focus more on developing skills that lead to improved content, organization, and style’’ (p. 21).

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

77

Gilsdorf and Leonard (2001) report that although faculty find usage errors more annoying than executives, the latter rated many errors as serious. They state that ‘‘. . . as members of business discourse communities, business readers tend to read rapidly, for meaning . . . a perceived error trips them up . . . [and] may tend to think ill of the usage violator who slowed them down’’ (p. 459). There is concern, however, that students’ English writing proficiency may not be up to the level needed for efficient and effective communication (Bacha, 2003; Bernhardt, 1985; Jackson, 2005; Nickerson, 2005; Mukattash, 2003). A study Bernhardt (1985) carried out with undergraduates at the College of Liberal Arts Council of Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, indicated that both students and faculty value writing, especially the different genres such as descriptions, letters, case studies, research reports to mention a few, but in practice it may be different. He notes that the English teachers need the help of the discipline faculty in reinforcing the development of their students’ writing skills. Bernhardt’s (1985, p. 1) statement below is quite familiar to many of us even today. After all, how can we expect students to write well after they leave our introductory composition courses if they are not expected to do much writing in their other courses? We know that it takes practice to sustain writing skills, and we suspect that students simply do not get much practice. We assume that other faculty members avoid assigning writing because it is time-consuming to grade; multiple choice and true–false tests can be scored so much more easily and reliably. We feel like lonely defenders of literacy losing the battle because we lack support from our colleagues in other departments. Although not the focus of the present study, it is worthwhile mentioning some of the many studies that propose how business instructors can better help students acquire the necessary writing skills and genres, thus reinforcing the importance of writing. These include methods such as collaborative writing (Barbour, 1990; Lowry, Curtis, & Lowry, 2004; Nelson & Smith, 1990), technical writing focusing on language, organization and content (Jameson, 2006) with both business and English faculty involved, motivating students through efficient feedback/grading and showing samples of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ writing (Pittenger, Miller, & Allison, 2006), genre-based teaching instruction (Cheng, 2006) and specifically teaching research articles through rhetorical moves (Lim, 2006) as well as implications for teaching vocabulary from corpus studies (Nelson, 2006). All this is not to undermine the importance of the teacher in helping the students themselves acquire learning strategies (Chamot, 2005; Stowers & Barker, 2003), individualizing instruction in writing centers (e.g. Kuiper & Thomas, 2000) and preparing them for the job market with practice through e-mail and internet (e.g. Law, 1998; Quible, 1993; Schott Karr, 2001), portfolio assignments (e.g. Campbell, 2002), proposal, case studies, research, and interactive business reports (e.g. Davidson & Gumnior, 1993; Lay, Wahlstrom, & Doheny-Farina, 2000). 2.2. English for specific purposes and writing across and in the disciplines English for specific purposes, with the ‘. . . expansion of scientific, technical, and economic activity on an international scale’ after the Second World War, became important to meet the needs of the learner in both academic and work environments (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 6). This was followed by more extensive work begin-

78

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

ning in the early 1980s in tertiary institutions in setting up English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Programs to meet the language demands of students in the various disciplines. As a part of these efforts writing across the curriculum and in the disciplines (WAC/WID) with the view of improving students’ perceived literacy weaknesses in two main directions began to appear mainly focusing on (1) writing to learn and (2) writing in the disciplines (OWL, 2003). Basically, the writing to learn approach is based on assignments such as journals, logs, and other types of informal writing in which students improve their writing through giving their reactions to readings and questions in their own words. Through such writing assignments, it is presumed that students would learn. The writing in the disciplines approach focuses on the fact that different disciplines have their own specific written genres such as reports and research papers which students should be taught by the disciplines along with the English teachers (Jordan, 1997; OWL, 2003). Chanock (2003) points out the differences in the English curriculum and in specific writing in the disciplines in different countries. For instance, in countries that follow a British system of education such as Britain itself and Australia, students at the university level are not required to take composition classes. Students end up being proficient in essay writing but lacking the strategies needed to be able to analyze different writing modes and genres in order to cope with the varied demands of writing in their own profession. This is not the case in other places such as North America where these English language composition classes are the basis upon which to build the writing across the curriculum courses. Tchudi and Lafer (1996) claimed even back then that this should be reflected in the academic community in that there should be more interdisciplinary cooperation between the humanities and sciences disciplines for more effective teaching/learning. Linton, Madigan, and Johnson (1994) pinpoint the advantages of having language teachers work closely with discipline teachers, believing that this would allow learners to acquire not only pedagogical genres, but also and more importantly, disciplinary discourse models. Mahala and Swilky (1994) report several attempts to reform the process followed in teaching reading/writing at colleges and universities but indicate concern that the main obstacle is that faculty are separated by specialization, which hinders cooperation among the English and the discipline faculty and perhaps even within the disciplines. However, the need must be addressed as expressed below: Writing in the Disciplines (WID) is primarily a college-level initiative, based on the belief that each discipline has it own conventions of language use and style and that these conventions must be taught to students so that they might successfully participate in academic discourse (OWL, 2003, p. 1). Hyland (2002) is of the opinion that ‘‘specificity is an essential task of EAP/ESP writing’’ and warns against the adoption of an ‘autonomous’ view of literacy, which ‘‘misleads learners into believing that they simply have to master a set of rules which can be transferred across fields’’ (p. 392). Today, this cooperation is even more significant, effectively achieved through ‘linked language and discipline-specific content courses’’ (Song, 2006). 3. Methodology The aim of this study is to find out through a needs analysis approach what the writing level and writing needs are of the students in the business major.

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

79

3.1. Context The EFL Program at the Lebanese American University at both sites, Beirut and Byblos, has a total of five composition courses, three at the Freshman level and two at the Sophomore level, which all entering students are required to take irrespective of their majors. The number of courses students take, however, depends upon entry placement based on their English entrance scores. Three of the courses are at the Freshman level and focus on academic writing, dealing with mechanics and essay writing at the lower levels, and research writing at the more advanced levels. By the end of the three Freshman English language courses, students are expected to be able to write more or less a five paragraph academic essay as well as a five to seven page term paper. The two Sophomore level English courses focus on critical and argumentative writing genres in one and on public speaking in the other. These five courses are part of the Humanities Division of the School of Arts and Sciences, and are thus separated from other disciplines. There is, however, a single elective business communication course in the School of Business that deals mostly with taking business minutes, writing memos, and preparing business letters and reports, taught by English faculty members who have had experience in giving the course an English for Specific Purposes orientation. LAU has four schools: Engineering and Architecture, Pharmacy, Arts and Sciences, and Business and very soon Medicine. The Business major, the focus of the present study, offers a three year undergraduate program towards the Bachelors degree with tracks in accounting, banking and finance, management information systems, economics, family and entrepreneurial business management, international business, marketing, management, and hospitality management. Students may continue towards their Masters degree (MBA) if they have the required academic level. The School of Business at the two campus sites, Beirut and Byblos, has one of the highest enrollment rates at the university and offers a high quality education. English is the medium of instruction at the university (although many of the students are multi-lingual, with Arabic and French being the main first and second languages) of highly qualified professors holding doctorate degrees from North America and the United Kingdom. It is clear from the objectives of the Business School which focus on developing students’ communicative and leadership skills locally, regionally and internationally (University Academic Catalog, 2005–2006) that English skills are very important for the success of the students, and thus, the significance of the present study. Graduates are competitive on the market and well sought after for career placement in Lebanon and abroad. However, in informal interviews (see Appendix B for questions) with 10 business faculty, it was generally commented that while students’ business background is credible, their English skills could be further improved. Towards this end, instructors find a need for some cooperation to be developed between the business and English faculty. 3.2. Participants and data collection A questionnaire was piloted, refined (see Appendix A) and administered by the English instructors to 500 Freshman and Sophomore English students in the EFL Program at LAU at the two sites, the Beirut and Byblos Campuses, during the Spring 2005 Semester. Three hundred and twenty four questionnaires were collected, a 64% response rate, out of

80

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

which 159 questionnaires were from students following a business major, representing 49% of the total response rate. However, the response rate for each question varied. Surveys were anonymous and were completed on a voluntary basis. Surveying the students from the different disciplines attending the required English classes would not only allow for a maximum of respondents but also be a more positive way to collect surveys from those following a business major. Parallel questionnaires were distributed to 50 instructors teaching undergraduate business courses at both the Beirut and Byblos Campus sites (parallel to that of the students’, see Appendix A). The questionnaires were sent to the faculty offices explaining the purpose of the study and requesting that they be returned anonymously to the researchers. Thirty seven faculty questionnaires were collected, a 74% response rate. Since the faculty questionnaire paralleled that of the students’, it was not included as a sample in the study. The questionnaires were constructed to obtain comparative data relating to the three specific aims of the study. Question 1 relates to the first aim as to which of the skills, reading, writing, speaking or listening, both faculty and students perceived as most important for students’ study in the business major on a scale of 1–4 with 4 ranking the most important. Questions 2, 3, and 5 relate to the second aim on perceptions of students’ language ability, especially to writing proficiency level in the major on the same scale as question number 1. Specifically, question 2 aimed at obtaining views on three writing criteria found important in any genre: sentence structure and vocabulary, ideas (content) and organization. Question 5 was found a relevant inclusion in order to obtain views on the extent to which students improve in the writing skill over the semester. Question 4 relates to aim three on obtaining the expected writing tasks. The tasks as indicated were chosen from informal interviews from both students and faculty during the course of the academic year. Question 6 relates to the fourth aim on how students and faculty perceive the role of the English and business instructors in the development of students’ English proficiency. The data was input in the Statistical Packet for Social Sciences and analyzed according to a comparison of student and faculty views using the statistical tests mentioned. Since there were no significant differences according to which campus site, Beirut or Byblos, the faculty or students were attending, the results are reported below as one sample. 4. Findings and discussion The results are given below according to the order of the survey questions. 4.1. Importance of language skills for business major The first survey question was for both students and faculty to rank the importance of the four language skills for their business major on a scale of 1–4, with 4 being of most importance. 147 students and 37 faculty responded to this question. As Table 1 indicates, faculty and students significantly differ in their ranking of the importance of the language skills. Results show that faculty found listening (p = <.000), reading (p = <.013), writing (p = <.016) significantly more important than students do, and although students indicated higher importance for speaking, there were no significant differences using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test at two-tailed significance level.

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

81

Table 1 Importance of skills: significant mean rank differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Significance level

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

2.73 2.67 2.97 2.51

83.99 94.28 87.89 87.93

3.57 2.54 3.46 3.00

126.30 87.88 110.81 110.68

p = <.000 p = .501 p = .013 p = .016

Table 2 indicates that when the skills were compared according to faculty separately, ratings indicated significant differences among the four language skills (p = <.000), with listening considered the most important followed by reading, writing and speaking using the Freidman’s Statistical Two-Tailed Significance Test for related samples. This indicates that faculty regard listening and reading as more important for their course work than the other skills. Since lectures and required reading assignments (personal communication 2006 with a random sample of 10 faculty) are prime modes of teaching, it is understandable that teachers would highly rate listening and reading. Results also indicated a significant difference (p = <.008) when the skills were compared according to students separately, with reading rating as the most important followed by listening, speaking and writing using the Freidman’s Statistical Two-Tailed Significance Test for related samples. Considering the reading material and the lectures in their business studies, it is not surprising that students would consider reading and listening of priority. Below is a comparison of what the faculty and students consider of importance by priority, with the first skill mentioned being of the highest priority. Faculty: Listening, reading, writing, and speaking Students: Reading, Listening, speaking, and writing It is worth noting that faculty rate the writing skill of more importance than the students do. These results reinforce students’ often repeated comments in the English classes that writing for their major is not very important as, according to them, there is not a high frequency of writing. One factor why students and faculty consider the speaking skill of lower importance may be due to the fact that Lebanon, a multi-lingual country in which a majority of students are tri-lingual, code-switch and use other languages, primarily Arabic and French, in

Table 2 Importance of skills: significant mean rank differences among skills by faculty and student ratings using the Freidman’s Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

2.73 2.67 2.97 2.51

2.54 2.45 2.74 2.26

3.57 2.54 3.46 3.00

3.01 1.82 2.89 2.27

* **

Significance test for faculty p = .008. Significance test for students p = <.00.

82

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

and out of the classroom. Also, it has been noticed that students often do not participate in class discussions preferring to listen, a learning style left over from traditional methods of teaching/learning in the high schools. 4.2. Student language ability Students and faculty then responded to how they perceived the level of the students’ language ability in the business major on a scale of 1–4, with 4 indicating good ability. It was interesting to see how writing would rank compared to the other skills. 133 students and 37 faculty responded to this question. Tables 3 and 4 indicate that when faculty and student views were compared using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test at two-tailed significance level, faculty view students as having significantly lower language abilities than the students do. When the skills were compared separately, both faculty and students indicated significantly higher student ability levels in listening and reading than speaking and writing, with the latter significantly the lowest using the Freidman’s Statistical Test. These results are not surprising considering that faculty often complain that students’ written language is weak and often ask the English Program to give more help in improving their students’ writing. The informal interviews with the 10 colleagues in the discipline showed the dissatisfaction of the subject matter teachers when referring to the English language of the students (see Appendix B for interview questions). The majority claim that students’ language is often not satisfactory nor up to university level and needs to be improved in order for students to cope with the business required writing tasks. One factor why students might consider their writing more than satisfactory is that their grades in the business courses are normally higher than those in the English courses, which may give them the impression that their English proficiency is also up to that level (informal random interviews with business students). Thus, faculty perceptions of students’ written language ability seem to be more realistic than those of the students. 4.3. Student writing ability The third survey question was student and faculty perceptions of the students’ writing ability in the major on three variables, sentence structure and vocabulary, ideas, and organization of ideas on a scale of 1–4, with 4 indicating good ability. 132 students and 37 faculty responded. As Tables 5 and 6 indicate, faculty again perceive students’ writing level to be lower than that viewed by the students. Specifically, Table 1 indicates that both faculty and students rated the latter’s ability in writing on three variables the same, with ability in

Table 3 Language ability: significant mean rank differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Significance level

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

3.58 3.32 3.62 3.31

108.20 109.76 106.66 110.44

2.86 2.43 2.68 2.16

54.46 45.49 53.92 44.86

p = <.001 p = <.001 p = <.001 p = <.001

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

83

Table 4 Language ability: significant mean rank differences among skills by faculty and student ratings using the Freidman’s Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

3.58 3.32 3.62 3.31

2.69 2.28 2.77 2.26

2.86 2.43 2.68 2.16

3.00 2.27 2.81 1.92

* **

Significance test for faculty p = <.000. Significance test for students p = <.000.

Table 5 Writing skill: significant mean rank differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Significance level

Sentence structure and vocabulary Ideas Organization of ideas

3.16

110.62

2.14

44.12

p = <.001

3.46 3.25

108.75 109.07

2.62 2.38

52.08 50.73

p = <.001 p = <.001

Table 6 Writing skill: significant mean rank differences among skills by faculty and student ratings using the Freidman’s Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Sentence structure and vocabulary Ideas Organization of ideas

3.16 3.46 3.25

1.87 2.18 1.95

2.14 2.62 2.38

1.69 2.31 2.00

* **

Significance test for faculty p = <.000. Significance test for students p = <.000.

ideas being the highest followed by organization and sentence skills. However, students perception of their writing on all three variables were significantly higher than those of the faculty, p = <.000, using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test at a two-tailed significance level. Table 2 indicates high significant differences when the three writing skill variables were compared by faculty and students separately, with sentence structure and vocabulary the weakest and ideas the highest using the Friedman’s Statistical Test at two-tailed significance level. Although students have higher perceptions of their writing ability than do faculty, both are in agreement that students’ writing skills in sentence structure and vocabulary are significantly the weakest. 4.4. Frequency of writing tasks In this question, students and faculty indicated the degree to which the type of writing assignment was written in their business courses on a scale of 1–4, with 4 representing high frequency. 157 students and 37 faculty responded. Tables 7 and 8 indicate once again a

84

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

Table 7 Writing tasks: significant mean rank differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Significance level

Essay assignments Essay test Letters Reports Research papers Summary of lectures Note-taking in class Note-taking from internet

3.02 2.87 2.05 1.87 2.87 2.40 3.13 2.59

106.13 107.27 105.36 96.17 104.06 103.14 100.74 99.03

2.12 1.85 1.33 1.91 2.18 1.79 2.79 2.18

56.16 49.08 57.05 92.73 67.22 63.92 81.24 75.95

p = <.001 p = <.001 p = <.001 p = <.001 p = 0.716 p = 0.43 p = <.001 p = <.021

Table 8 Writing tasks: significant mean rank differences among skills by faculty and student ratings using the Freidman’s Statistical Test Skill

Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Essay assignments Essay test Letters Reports Research papers Summary of lectures Note-taking in class Note-taking from internet

3.02 2.87 2.05 1.87 2.87 2.40 3.13 2.59

5.50 5.07 3.27 2.83 5.11 4.01 5.71 4.50

2.12 1.85 1.33 1.91 2.18 1.79 2.79 2.18

4.89 4.20 2.86 4.38 4.92 3.89 5.95 4.89

* **

Significance test for faculty p = <.000. Significance test for students p = <.000.

difference showing that students and faculty do not have similar expectations of required writing assignments or load. Table 7 indicates that students perceived higher frequencies on all written tasks except for report writing when compared with faculty, with high significant differences using the Mann Whitney Statistical Test at a two-tailed significance level. There were no significant differences on the frequency of research papers. It seems that students expect higher writing demands than the faculty actually give and agreed only on the frequency of the research paper. Table 8 indicates that when the frequency of the writing tasks was compared by student and faculty separately, there were high significant differences using the Freidman’s Statistical Test at a two-tailed significance level. Both students and faculty expressed different frequencies for each of the written tasks. Some rationale for the frequency of writing tasks findings are given below. 4.4.1. Essay writing Faculty do not seem to find essay writing important in their business classes as reflected in the results. One reason why students may report higher perceived frequency of essay writing could be they wanted to please their English instructors by filling out the questionnaire

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

85

in the English classroom. Some students may have misunderstood and thought they needed to relate the frequency to their English classroom where essay writing is of very high frequency throughout the semester, with at least four graded essays and a final essay. 4.4.2. Essay tests Faculty in the business courses also use multiple choice testing formats and other forms of testing such as projects, reports, and research papers, and thus these may be factors for the lower frequency. Essay testing is normally a format used in the Humanities courses such as English, History, Cultural Studies and the like. 4.4.3. Letters It is not very clear why both students and faculty disagree significantly on this. Letter writing is an important genre in the business discipline; however, it might be that faculty do not focus on it as much as students would like to. Also, there is a Business English Course where letter writing is taught by an English faculty member which might explain the difference. 4.4.4. Reports It seems that at the undergraduate level, report writing is not a frequent writing task; yet it is understandable that faculty view it with higher frequency since they may sometimes assign reports as extra work or in lieu of another task. 4.4.5. Research papers Research papers are considered frequent writing tasks in the academic community and the business faculty do require their students to write these even at the undergraduate level. 4.4.6. Summary of lectures Faculty do not necessarily require their students to summarize their class notes. However, students focus very heavily on class lectures and even compare notes among their fellow colleagues. This is part of the culture of learning in Lebanon where students rely very heavily on what is given in class. Reading of required texts is a second. 4.4.7. Note taking from class lectures/internet Similar to summary of lectures, students consider the faculty’s class notes as very important, and many of them attempt to take notes on the lecture word for word. Similarly, the internet as a source of extra information and follow up on the discussions in class are taken seriously by the students especially when writing their research papers, reports, and preparing for exams. Faculty, on the other hand, prefer students to listen to the lectures, discuss and critically analyze ideas. When students were asked to comment on what other business writing assignments were needed, a range of writing tasks was mentioned. These included, journal research, data based programming, e-mails, mind mapping, designing experiments, take-home written exercises and exams, chatting, diaries, and short answer questions. Faculty did not add any other assignments. It might be that they consider the course content satisfactory.

86

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

4.5. Rate of writing improvement In the fifth question, both students and faculty indicated the rate of student writing improvement in the business major over the semester. 157 students and 37 faculty responded. As indicated in Table 9, a higher percentage of students indicated a lot more improvement over the semester in their writing skills than the faculty did, while a small percentage indicated that their writing proficiency was sufficient for their business course work. Results on faculty perceptions on the other hand, although indicating that a higher percentage of students improved in English sufficiently over the course of the semester to deal with their course work than students indicated, showed that at the same time there was a much higher percentage of the students that had insufficient command of the language. Both students and faculty indicated that a small percentage of students did not improve over the semester with the faculty indicating a higher percentage. On the whole, students had a higher positive percentage (75.5%) towards their English improvement over the semester to deal with their course work than did faculty (59.4%) if the percentages of the variables a lot, sufficient, no need are added. However, these results showed no significant differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Kruskal Wallis Statistical Test at two-tailed significance level (Table 10). Another similar study by Hiemstra (2001) indicates that while students writing skills need to be of a higher proficiency level to cope with the writing tasks required in the business courses, the faculty see more improvement on one task – the business report – than do the students. Both agree but to different extents that organization was perceived to have improved the most, but differ in the rate of improvement on other writing criteria such as conciseness, clarity, completeness, correctness, and content. Both students and faculty agreed that there was least improvement in grammar and mechanics. Suggestions to close this gap included making the purpose, concepts, and skills of the assignment clearer to the students, explaining evaluation criteria, and having students assess their own writing skills. It was pointed out that students often have higher expectations of their writing skills on entering the business discipline and thus may see that they are improving less over the course of the semester.

Table 9 Writing improvement: percent differences between faculty and student perceptions Rate

Student percentage

Faculty percentage

A lot Sufficient Insufficient None No need

29.6 37.1 18.9 5.7 8.8

13.5 43.2 32.4 8.1 2.7

Table 10 Writing improvement: significant mean rank differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Kruskal Wallis Statistical Test Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Significance level

2.27

95.82

2.43

110.0

p = .152

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

87

4.6. Role of business and English faculty The last question was to obtain data on whom the students and faculty perceive as being responsible in helping students improve in their writing skills in the business major. 159 students and 37 faculty responded to this question. Tables 11 and 12 indicate some consensus as to the role of the business and English faculty. 45.9% of the faculty and 54.1% of the students agree that the responsibility of teaching writing lies with both the English and business faculty. A higher percentage of faculty than students view it to be the role of the English faculty alone, while a higher, but small percentage of students consider it the role of the business faculty alone. None of the business faculty indicated that it was the sole responsibility of the business faculty. This confirms the often repeated requests of the business faculty that English faculty must ‘do something’ to raise the proficiency level of the students. A small student percentage (5%) mentioned other means such as each individual student alone and/or with the business instructor, all instructors at the university, in high school, while a few commented that they did not know. Faculty members (2.7%) further mentioned the student should be responsible. No significant differences were found in the results using the Kruskal Wallis Statistical Test. Although there is controversy in the literature as to the role of the English language and business faculty, it has been shown that the teaching of the written genres required in the major is best assumed by both (see Zhu, 2004 for summary of debate and research). 4.7. Summary of results This study arose from signals from the business faculty and students that something was needed to improve the teaching/learning of English. The present research has been an attempt to address this issue by investigating the perceptions of both business faculty and students on the (1) relative importance of the language skills in the business courses, (2) students’ language ability especially in writing in the business major, (3) written business task requirements, and (4) who is to assume the role, the English and/or business faculty in developing the students’ writing skills in the business major. Findings show that although students consider the listening, speaking and reading language skills more important than the writing skill in their courses, they realize that there Table 11 Role of faculty: percent differences between faculty and student perceptions Faculty

Student percentage

Faculty percentage

English Business English/Business Other

32.7 8.2 54.1 5

51.4 0 45.9 2.7

Table 12 Role of faculty: significant mean rank differences between faculty and student perceptions using the Kruskal Wallis Statistical Test Student mean

Student mean ranks

Faculty mean

Faculty mean ranks

Significance level

2.31

101.37

2.00

86.16

p = .102

88

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

are written tasks that they regularly need to produce. The results further show that students consider their writing improved significantly more than faculty do and indicate higher frequencies of required writing tasks such as reports and research papers while adding additional ones. Finally, the results indicate that it is the responsibility of both the English and business faculty to collaborate in helping their students develop their business writing skills. 5. Conclusion and implications This study was carried out as both business students and faculty had complaints about the teaching/learning of English. The students complained that the English courses were not relevant to the business major and the faculty continually remarked that their students’ English language proficiency left much to be desired. The researchers wondered whether or not an ESP approach is needed? On investigating the issue, it was found that the faculty and student reactions were well taken. The present study has shed some light on the possible causes of these reactions, mainly that faculty and students do not hold similar views of students’ English ability or needs in the business courses. Faculty and students do agree, however, that both the English and business faculty should work together to improve the students’ business writing skills. The foregoing have far reaching implications for considering setting up an ESBP curriculum. The findings, therefore, provide valuable information on how the students and faculty view the written English proficiency of students, the frequency of written genres that students need to produce in the business discipline and who should assume this responsibility. There seems to be consensus in the research confirmed by the present study that students’ academic writing skills in the business discipline at the tertiary level are important, but could be better improved with more specific teaching/learning of business writing tasks taught in both the language programs and the business discipline (Bhatia & Candlin, 2001, Jackson, 2005 among others). The implications of this study for the development and implementation of an ESP approach are significant. Belcher (2004, p. 166), in reviewing the trends in ESP comments Unlike other pedagogical approaches, which may be less specific-needs-based and more theory-driven, ESP pedagogy places heavy demands on its practitioners to collect empirical needs-assessment data, to create or adapt materials to meet the specific needs identified, and to cope with often unfamiliar subject matter and even language use . . .. The findings, thus far, do indicate that this situation needs to be addressed in the EFL Program at the Lebanese American University. One way could be through establishing an ESP program which could cater to the task writing needs as identified by both the business students and faculty in the present study. Mahfouz’s (2004) recent findings in her doctorate research in Lebanon on ESP show that very little research and programs in this area are available in Lebanon. She suggests, however, a proposal for training teachers in ESP curriculum design and assessment as well as an ESP course, which could provide a framework and a starting point for designing an English for Specific Business Purposes (ESBP) curriculum. EFL Programs such as the one at LAU would do well to consider setting up an ESBP curriculum for student writing development in business academic contexts.

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

89

In conclusion, studies such as the present one contribute immensely to continually identifying our students’ needs and providing a forum in which to build needed collaboration between the business and English faculty. In this way, we can together better help our students to face the writing challenges that await them.

Acknowledgements This research is part of a wider university study on language across and in the disciplines partly funded by the LAU University Research Council.

Appendix A. Student questionnaire (A parallel questionnaire was used for the Faculty as it relates to their students)

Dear Student:

Fill out this questionnaire as accurately as you can by circling the appropriate number according to the following scale with 4 being the most. Please do not write your name. The purpose of this questionnaire is to find your opinions of your writing in the major.

Major: ______________________________________ 1. Rank choices 1–4 which skill is most important to your major. a. b. c. d.

Reading Writing Speaking Listening

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

2. Circle the number that best indicates your perception of your language ability in the major. a. b. c. d.

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

3. Circle the number that best indicates your writing ability of the below in the major. a.

b. c.

Sentence structure and vocabulary Ideas Organization of ideas

4

3

2

1

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

90

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

4. What kind of writing do you do in the major? (4 a lot, 3 sometimes, 2 rarely, 1 never) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Essay assignments Essay tests Letters Lab and reports Research papers Summary of lectures Note-taking in class Note-taking/internet Other: Specify______

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5. To what extent do you improve in the writing needed for the major over the semester? a. b. c. d. e.

A great deal A sufficient amount to deal with the course work Not enough None at all Already have a satisfactory level

6. The teaching of writing should be the responsibility of (check all that apply). a. b. c.

The English teacher The content-area teacher in the major Both the English and content-area teacher in the major

Other: specify ______________

Appendix B. Faculty interview questions Do your students have language problems? Do you use languages other than English in the class to explain the material? What types of language problems do they have? How do you deal with these problems? Do you find that students improve by the end of the semester? Do you think they are improving due to English?

References Adams, K., & Keene, M. (2000). Research and writing across the disciplines (2nd ed.). California: Mayfield Publishing Company. Bacha, N. N. (2003). English across academic and professional communities: A study of EFL learners’ needs at the Lebanese American University. The Official Journal of the Association of American International Colleges and Universities, 2, 33–62. Barbour, D. (1990). Collaborative writing in the business writing classroom: An ethical dilemma for the teacher. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication. (September), 33–35.

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

91

Belcher, D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics(24), 165–186. Bernhardt, S. A. (1985). Writing across the curriculum at one university: A survey of faculty members and students. ADE Bulletin, 082, 55–59. Bhatia, V., & Candlin, C. (2000). Multifaceted needs analysis in business education: Dimensions of professional discourse: new challenges for ESP. In Paper presented at the Annual TESOL Convention, Vancouver, March 2000. Bhatia, V., & Candlin, C. (2001). Teaching English to meet the needs of business education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Center for English language education and communication research, Department of English, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Campbell, N. (2002). Getting rid of the yawn factor: Using a portfolio assignment to motivate students in professional writing class (My Favorite Assignment). Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 42–54. Canagarajah, S. (2002). The geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. Chanock, K. (2003). A framework for analyzing varieties of writing in a discipline. Writing Across the Curriculum, 14, 49–65. Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 76–89. Creese, A. (2000). The role of the language specialist in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(6), 461–470. Davidson, L. S., & Gumnior, E. C. (1993). Writing to learn in a business economics class. Journal of Economic Education, 24(3), 237–243. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dudley-Evans, T., & Swales, J. (1980). Study modes and students from the Middle East. In Study modes and academic development of overseas students. ELT documents (Vol. 109). London: The British Council. Duff, P. A. (2001). Learning English for academic and occupational purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 606–607. Flowerdew, J. (1990). English for specific purposes – A selective review of the literature. English Language Teaching Journal, 44(4), 326–337. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 8–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, L. (2003). Writing across the disciplines for learning excellence. School of Business/Department of Mathematics, Indianapolis, unpublished paper. Gilsdorf, J., & Leonard, D. (2001). Big stuff, little stuff: A decennial measurement of executives and academics; reactions to questionable usage elements. The Journal of Business Communication, 38(4), 439–475. Haynes, C. (2002). Innovations in interdisciplinary teaching. Westport, Connecticut: American Council on Education, Oryx Press. Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (Eds.). (1992). Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. Hiemstra, K. (2001). Instructor and student perceptions of what is learned by writing the business report. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 55–63. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now?. English for Specific Purposes 21(4), 385–395. Jackson, J. (2005). An inter-university, cross-disciplinary analysis of business education: Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 293–306. Jameson, D. (2006). Teaching graduate business students to write clearly about technical topics. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(1), 76–81. Johns, A. (2003a). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Johns, A. (2003b). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johns, A. (2005). Language and change: Academic literacies in a complex era. In R. Bahous & N. Bacha (Eds.), Language and change: Selected papers from the second regional English conference on language and change held at the Lebanese American University (pp. 9–14). Beirut: Librairie du Liban.

92

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

Johns, A. M., & Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 13–28. Jones, C., Turner, J., & Street, B. (1999). Students writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kress, G. (2000). Early spelling: Between convention and creativity. London: Routledge. Kuiper, S., & Thomas, M. W. (2000). A strategic consultancy model for establishing a center for business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 52–67. Law, J. (1998). Learning to write with e-mail in money and banking. Writing Across the Curriculum, 7, 1–3. Lay, M., Wahlstrom, B., & Doheny-Farina, S. (2000). Technical communication (2nd ed.). Chicago: Irwin. Leki, I. (2003a). A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated? In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 315–332). New York: Cambridge University Press. Leki, I. (2003b). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Written Communication: An International Quarterly of Research, Theory, and Application, 20(1), 81–98. Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282–309. Linton, P., Madigan, R., & Johnson, S. (1994). Introducing students to disciplinary genres the role of the general composition course. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 1(2), 63–78. Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99. Mahala, D., & Swilky, J. (1994). Resistance and reform: The functions of expertise in writing across the curriculum. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 1(2), 35–62. Mahfouz, M. (2004). From professionalism to expertise: an English for specific purposes certificate (ESPC) program for advisers and/or teachers in Lebanon. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Department of Educational Studies, University of the Holy Spirit, Kaslik, Lebanon. McLeod, S. (2002). WAC in international contexts: An introduction. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 5(3), 4–10. Mukattash, L. (2003). Towards a new methodology for teaching English to Arab learners (TEAL). International Journal of Arabic–English Studies, 4, 211–234. Nelson, M. (2006). Semantic associations in Business English: A corpus-based analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 217–234. Nelson, S. J., & Smith, D. C. (1990). Maximizing cohesion and minimizing conflict in collaborative writing groups. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication(6), 59–62. Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 367–380. Nickerson, C., Gerritsen, M., & Meurs, F. V. (2005). Raising student awareness of the use of English for specific business purposes in the European context: A staff–student project. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 334–345. OWL. (2003). Writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines. The Online Writing Lab, West Lafayette: IN, Purdue University. . Pittenger, K. K. S., Miller, M. C., & Allison, J. (2006). Can we succeed in teaching business students to write effectively. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 257–263. Quible, Z. K. (1993). How we should be teaching business communication according to findings of writing research. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56(3), 25–27. Richards, D. (1996). The meaning relevance of synthesis and interdisciplinary studies. The Journal of General Education, 45, 14–128. Schott Karr, S. (2001). Learning business writing online. Financial Executive, 17(i4), 64. Seshadri, S., & Theye, L. (2001). Professionals and professors: Substance or style? Business Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 9–23. Song, B. (2006). Content-based ESL instruction: Long-term effects and outcomes. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 420–437. Stowers, R., & Barker, R. (2003). Improved student writing in business communication classes: Strategies for teaching and evaluation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33, 337–348. Street, B., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in written language and literacy. London: Routledge.

N.N. Bacha, R. Bahous / English for Specific Purposes 27 (2008) 74–93

93

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Mustafa, H. (Eds.). (1984). English for specific purposes in the Arab world. Birmingham, UK: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston. Tchudi, S., & Lafer, S. (1996). The interdisciplinary teacher’s handbook: Integrated teaching across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. University Academic Catalog (2005–2006). Beirut: Lebanese American University. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45–58. West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in teaching: State of the art. Language Teaching, 27, 1–19. Zhu, Wei (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29–48. Nahla Nola Bacha is a holder of a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester, England and is presently an Associate Professor and Chairperson of the Humanities Division at the Lebanese American University, Lebanon, Byblos Campus. She has presented papers and workshops at local and international conferences, organized ELT workshops at LAU for the community in conjunction with the British Council, and coordinated and co-authored English texts for the Lebanese National Center for Educational Research and Development. Her research interests are in discourse, ESP/EAP, testing, and bilingualism. Rima Bahous is a holder of an Ed.D. in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester, England and is presently an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Education Department at the Lebanese American University, Beirut Campus. She is a teacher trainer. Her research interests are in testing, ESP/EAP, and language use in society.