Go for Gold: Integrating Process and Product in ESP

EnglishfmSpeci/ic Pu~osa. Vol. 11. pp. 22%242. 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in the USA.

O&9-493392 $5.00 + .cxl Copyrighl 0 1992 The American University

Go for Gold: Integrating Process and Product in ESP

Kennyland FionaHyland

Abstract - This article examines an example of a task-based ESP syllabus. The course is based on the BBC ELT series “Bid for Power” and has been developed over a number of years with Upper Intermediate students at The University of Technology in Papua New Guinea. The course is described in some detail and discussed in terms of its syllabus design, looking at the selection and sequencing of content and learning tasks. The discussion seeks to illuminate and refine some unclear notions of process syllabuses by relating a specific example to theoretical concepts. It is argued that a syllabus may have a process focus without being totally learner-led. It is suggested that this has implications for ESP syllabus designers wishing to encourage students to take control of their learning.

Introduction

Task-based syllabuses have received a great deal of attention in recent years as representing a pedagogically appropriate and effective means of teaching communicative competence. If communicative competence is essentially part pragmatic and part cognitive (Candlin 1987: 7), then teaching such competence will include not just teaching the structures of a language, but also using that knowledge in the solution of problems. Thus, a task-based syllabus should involve an interaction between knowledge and procedure. It will necessitate setting up situations where the learners are required to respond actively and engage in “purposeful communication with their fellow leaders” (Candlin 1987: 8).

There is a certain amount of confusion surrounding the classification of syllabus types. Process-oriented syllabuses, focusing on the means of gaining knowledge and skills, have been contrasted with product-based syllabuses, which focus exclusively on the outcomes of instruction (e.g., Widdowson 1983: 107). Nunan (1988: 42) views task-based and procedural syllabuses as virtually synonymous, sharing a concern with classroom processes, and subsumes them under the heading of process types. Breen (1987) considers that task-based and process syllabuses both represent “how something is done,” but he be- lieves the process syllabus extends the focus on procedures for learning by allowing greater learner reinterpretation and decision making.

White (1988: 94) classifies task-based syllabuses as “procedural,” being teacher-led with a cognitive focus. In contrast, he argues that process sylla-

Address correspondence to: Ken Hyland. International Pacilic College. Private Bag 11021, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

225

K. Hyland and F. Hyland

buses have a learning focus and are learner-led. However, a great deal of learning free of teacher direction can occur within a task-based syllabus. The teacher can provide a course framework of tasks, learning content, appropriate materials, and broad outcomes which allows students to decide which methods and procedures they will use to work towards their goals. We believe that task-based syllabuses offer good opportunities for student autonomy and control, whilst having the advantages of a known structure and clearly set product outcomes. The course discussed here therefore seeks to provide a balance between process and product in learning. The students have a sense of security and purpose, but are stiIl able to develop their own approaches and make their own selection of activities.

The literature contains a number of accounts of task-based approaches which seek to combine process and product orientations. Interesting projects such as Herbolich’s box kites (1985), Bloor and St Johns project writing (1988), and Barron’s traditional engineering project (1991) clearly illustrate the value of process-oriented language learning in ESP. Prabhu’s general English procedural syllabus has also been carefully monitored and evaluated (see Beretta & Davis 1985; Greenwood 1985; Prabhu 1987). Ail these examples, however, share a similar teacher-directed character, as the students complete activities which are provided and closely monitored by the teacher. In contrast, there are very few examples of learner-led task-based syllabuses. Sturtridge (1977) offers a notable exception and her early account has many parallels with the course discussed here.

In this article we propose to look closely at a task-based syllabus for ESP. We will attempt to show that this course, while not completely student-led, provides many opportunities for student autonomy and input, involving students in an ongoing process of learning which integrates language and communicative skills in a meaningful situation.

Background

Go for Gold (GfG) is a task-based ESP course for second-year business students run by the language and communication department at the Papua New Guinea (PNG) University of Technology. The students, who are from a wide variety of language backgrounds, speak English as a second or third language at upper intermediate or advanced levels. English is the medium of instruction in the university, and students from all faculties take compulsory credit-bearing courses in the department to improve their language and communication skills. Class sizes in the department average about 16-18, and some 80 students complete the course each year. GfG has been running for at least eight years, and has been taught and modified by over a dozen staff in that time.

The course centres on the awarding of a contract to mine one of the world’s richest gold reserves on a small island off the PNG coast. It runs for 56 hours over an entire 14-week semester and involves a series of linked and roughly graded communication tasks which integrate the various skills needed to gather information, make decisions, and cooperate in interactive problem-solving.

Integrating Process and Product in ESP 227

GfG is a course designed on the premise of learning by doing: Students interact with materials and one another while working through a series of steps towards specific outcomes. The syllabus establishes a highly structured context with a certain amount of linguistic input and specific teacher-set. goals. Within this structure, however, the course provides a framework for autono- mous learning, as the ability to make decisions, follow diverse routes, and adopt different strategies remains with the students. As Candlii points out (1987: 81, this potential for a variety of learner options is a preeminent con- dition for task-based learning.

At the heart of the course is language. It is the means of stimulating students’ interests and motivating their active involvement in the exercise; leam- ers are obliged to attend to the linguistic environment and develop communication strategies to successfully work through a series of related tasks. This language use is perceived as purposeful and authentic, as it addresses issues of immediate interest to the participants and their future professional needs. The exploitation of PNG’s natural resources by giant multinationals is an extremely controversial political issue in a country where loyalties to family, clan, and traditional land are extremely strong. Moreover, these students are an edu- cated elite who are likely to rise rapidly to political and management positions where the ability to communicate confidently and effectively is essential. GfG therefore draws on learners’ background experiences, on highly charged local issues, and on their future language and communication requirements as sources of motivation (Scarcella 1978: 46).

A Course Description

The structure of the activity resembles that outlined for simulations by Sturtridge (1977) and is summarised in Table 1.

Candlin (1987: 11) suggests that learning activities should contain input, roles, settings, activities, monitoring, outcomes, and feedback. This is a useful way of analysing tasks, and we have adopted it to focus on the core elements of this syllabus.

Input

Input concerns the information, both linguistic and strategic, that forms the point of departure for the activity. GfG involves six weeks of input in order to prepare students for the roles and activities they will meet in the project phase. These input sources consist of an ELT television series together with a range of authentic written and listening materials.

The introduction of relevant concepts, identities, and language is largely achieved through a video programme in 13 episodes called “Bid for Power” (BBC 1983). This series is designed to provide intermediate students with a basic working knowledge of business English. The plot, however, closely par-


TABLE 1 Summary of Go for Gold Structure

Input stage Information Input “Bid for Power” video Public lecture Newspaper articles Reports, textbooks, etc. Role information cards Formation of groups

Activity stage 1. Preparations

Arranging and holding meetings Intragroup discussions Intergroup discussions Individual and group data collection

2. Presentations Ministers’ policy statements Local politicians’ statements of interest Bid specification report Bid proposal reports Oral presentations Announcement of decisions Reactions to decisions

Feedback stage Activity evaluation Discussion of the tasks Journal writing

Language Input “Bid for Power” video Focus on written genres Appropriate lexis

Language evaluation Discussion of

language use assessment sheet corrected documents remedial work

Video replays of presentations

allels the GfG scenario, centring on the political, commercial, and moral issues of exploiting mineral resources in a developing country.

“Bid for Power” provides both a stimulus to the activity to follow and a valuable introduction to important aspects of GfG. It raises a number of useful talking points while presenting formal aspects of language in a natural context. The responsibilities of different roles are explored in the video, and attention drawn to useful language which can be developed in class activities.

These activities have a pedagogic value in raising learners’ consciousness of how linguistic forms are used to perform various decision-making functions. Grammar and lexis are clearly valuable communicative resources, and attention is given to developing an understanding of their effective use in concrete situations. Controlled practice activities which promote understanding of the social meaning of language forms therefore accompany discussions of plot development and tasks focusing on the professional contexts. As far as possible, these activities encourage students to use and manipulate the language they hear in the episodes. Such activities include designing plans for the new mining town, producing minutes of on-screen meetings, agreeing on lists of qualities needed for particular jobs in the programme, and writing memos suggesting particular courses of action.


In addition to the video, students are introduced to the various issues of the development by a public lecture given by a representative from the mining company. Other essential background information is gathered by the students from a range of authentic reading materials publicly available from the university library, government departments, newspaper archives, and the mining companies. The advantages of using resources that have not been specitically created for the purpose of language learning have been enumerated by various writers (e.g., Grellet 1981: 7; Robinson 1980: 35; Wilkins 1976: 79) and are familiar to most teachers. Such materials expose the learner to the language of the real world and enhance the sense that he or she is participating in real language events. The language is natural, allows readers to make use of non- linguistic assistance, and is immediately relevant. Participants use company reports, feasibility studies, newspaper articles, government policy documents, maps, census data, economic graphs, and management texts to prepare their roles.

The purpose of reading these sources is always a genuine one; they alIow readers to gather information to complete other communicative tasks. The ways in which learners use these texts therefore always correspond with their original communicative intention.

Explicit linguistic input of a more familiar type, focusing on the means of communication and the operation of language in use, is also provided. Students receive instruction in formal oral presentations, business writing, research skik., and formal group and committee work. Examples of reports, minutes, and memos are closely examined, and their organisation and rhetorical structure scrutinised. Work is performed on different stages of these genres to sensitise students to their distinct functions. Oral presentation strategies are discussed and skills developed by delivering impromptu short talks and preparing small sections of talks, concentrating attention on different communicative and structural aspects and demonstrating the importance of multiple communication modes (Hyland 1991; Marshall & Williams 1986: 59-75).

Roles and Settings

The course requires each participant to select a role from one of the three groups detailed in Appendix 1. They include a political group consisting of ministers, local village representatives, and a provincial premier; a business group made up of a number of competing consortia; and a small consultant group advising the government.

The participants, then, are engaged in different roles which require very different perceptions of the modelled reality. Some relationships involve coop- eration and sharing information, while others entail competition and secrecy. Many parallel and simultaneous interactions occur in formulating positions and goals and in seeking to cooperatively negotiate agreement. These exchanges convey the complex nature of large-scale political/economic problems by help- ing the participants to appreciate the validity of alternative viewpoints and provide the basis for achieving negotiated outcomes.

230 K. Hyland and F. Hyland

With regard to settings, it can be seen that the course specifies a variety of classroom arrangements, involving individual, pair, and group work. Most arrangements are decided by the students themselves as representing the most effective way of completing tasks in a given time frame.

Activities

Activities are what the participants actually do with the input they have been given. The boundary between input and activity stages is indistinguishable in GfG, as the preparation involves learning. Students gradually adopt their roles as they collect the information they need to meet activity objectives. Then the focus shifts to more cooperative approaches with appointments made and meetings taking place between consortia, politicians, and consultants.

The role information given to students (Appendix 1) helps structure the syllabus in terms of product outcomes. These are typically either written reports expressing views and development proposals, or formal oral presentations announcing or reacting to decisions. It is worth noting here that reports and presentations are not simply important project outcomes (cf. Bloor & St John 1988), but are critical to the success of the course, as they provide information essential to other participants. Completion of these products depends on the resolution of a number of different problems, such as how best to develop the resource; how to raise capital; how to balance local, provincial, and national interests; who gets the contract; and so on. In turn, these issues are further composed of a multitude of smaller questions, such as manpower needs, village relocation, infrastructure provision, etc. Learning processes are therefore crucial to product achievement, as learners must successfully complete a series of tasks which lead them to their linal decisions.

At the heart of GfG, then, is a structured environment built around a few central problems. The coherence of the project depends on the progressive unfolding of context-dependent tasks which are also loosely sequenced in terms of processing difficulty. Nunan (1985) characterises task difficulty in terms of the cognitive and performance demands they make on the learner, so that moving from comprehension through production to interaction constitutes a progressive sequence. This “psycholinguistic-processing” approach provides a useful means of grading activities and establishing continuity so that skills are developed and extended in progressive stages. The fact that GfG demands an environment which preserves a “reality of function” (Iones 1982), however, compels the introduction of interactive tasks at a fairly early stage. Neverthe- less, the principle of gradually increasing the demands on learners is generally adhered to, with graded input and a sequence of progressively more complex products and decision-making tasks.

In GfG the task sequence builds on the activities of the input phase as the activity progresses along the path outlined below. While different roles require the completion of different tasks, all learners receive practice in a broadly similar range of skilIs as students focus, either individually or cooperatively, on various activities from those listed below.


Comprehending

1. Watch the first episodes of “Bid for Power” with no overt response. 2. Read short synopses of video episodes with no response. 3. Watch video and complete flowcharts of activities or mark boxes, select-

ing appropriate arguments for different courses of action, listing sections to include in different reports, ranking priorities, and so on.

4. Research any media material on mining issues as out-of-class assign- ments .

5. Study maps and decide on locations for, e.g., the wharf, new town, airstrip, process-waste disposal, new roads, relocation of villages, and so on.

Producing

1. Make decisions on video events such as job qualities, town plans, travel itineraries, possible plot developments, and so on.

2. Produce written diaries, memos, telex messages, etc. based on the video and using facts and arguments discussed in class.

3. Take written notes from a public lecture. 4. Locate and make notes from various written sources such as newspaper

articles and reports. 5. Arrange appointments and record meetings with other groups. 6. Formally present policies, views, bids, or specifications orally and visu-

dY.

Interacting

1. Role-play screen incidents and alternative outcomes. 2. Hold formal meetings with fellow group members to discuss plans of

approach, formulate views, and consider demands/policies. 3. Hold consultations with other groups to gather and impart information

and ascertain their positions. 4. Cooperatively produce a report stating views and policies, bid specifica-

tions, bid proposals, etc. based on earlier discussions and documents. 5. Answer questions on oral and written presentations. 6. Actively participate in seminar presentations as audience members.

Monitoring

Learning is in the hands of the learners, and this is achieved by engaging in meaningful and interesting tasks set up, but not directed by, the teacher. The social identities of GfG involve no prespecified constraints on behaviour or opinions, and this minimises the need for an interventionist teacher role. Mo- tivation replaces supervision as the activity becomes self-monitoring.

Motivation is encouraged because learners do not abandon their own per- sonalities and convictions by adopting GfG roles. Their attitudes and actions


are defined and made intelligible in terms of these roles. Underlying the activity identities, therefore, are participants’ own individual characters with their different dispositions and attitudes which shape the performance of the GfG determined roles. Students have-to draw on their own common sense under- standings to fill out the roles to improvise courses of action. In this way the participants take an active part in the interpretation of their roles and the negotiation of their performance. Because of this the experience of the activity is more personal and relevant. It allows learners a great deal of autonomy while engaging them in the learning programme and involving them in a process of personal growth.

As far as the teacher’s role is concerned, there is little explicit instruction and language modelling once the activity is underway. While there is consid- erable guidance during the input stage, the teacher’s main responsibility is to establish the conditions for communication and monitor what goes on during the activity. He or she establishes the setting and materials, allocates the roles, guides participants to relevant sources, and observes the interaction that takes place.

Outcomes

Any syllabus designed around the multifarious possibilities of interaction cannot allow task outcomes to be precisely anticipated. Learning tasks are reinterpreted by individual learners according to their own perceptions and needs, so outcomes are likely to be redrawn in the course of the activity (Breen 1987b; Wright 1987: 65). While we recognise that attempts to specify such outcomes too rigidly may serve to inhibit authentic communication, it is our experience that L2 learners require a framework of learning that will given them both security and a sense of purpose. In GfG, various outcomes are possible and permitted. Broad outcomes, involving both product and process objectives (cf. Nunan 1988: 701, can be worked towards flexibly, enabling independent learning within a teacher-structured syllabus.

More generally, GfG encompasses a range of goals or broad intentions. The variety of tasks simultaneously seeks to accomplish goals in six overlapping areas:

1. Communicative - To establish personal relationships, express professional identities, and develop interactional skills in order to exchange information, share ideas, and accomplish interpersonal outcomes.

2. Sociocultural - To develop an increased appreciation of the complexity of development issues affecting the country.

3. Linguistic - To gain an understanding of language use and the importance of different genres and mediums to accomplish particular purposes.

4. Cognitive - To help learners analyse, evaluate, and synthesise information; organise and plan course of action over time; and set objectives and formulate means of achieving them. To solve problems individually and cooperatively.


5. Academic - To promote the acquisition of a number of valuable research and study skills for successful study in English (e.g., library searches, interviewing, note-taking, lecture and small group strategies, and speci- alised reading skills).

6. Professional - To develop skills related to future career needs,. such as giving oral presentations; participating in committee meetings; and writing memos, minutes, letters, and reports.

While many of these goals may be difficult to distinguish in practice, it is useful to separate them in this way in order to be clear about what learners are doing and why. The wide range of objectives moreover reflects the complex integration of goals and language use which are rarely seen in isolation in the real world.

These objectives are discussed with participants at the beginning, since the pedagogical success of the activity depends on learners’ assumptions that the project has direct reference to their perceived learning needs. This kind of activity is unfamiliar to most learners and gives them a degree of control which some find threatening. Discussion of these general goals with learners creates an awareness of their current competence and helps them identify for themselves what needs to be achieved in progressing towards their own learning objectives.

Feedback

Feedback is a vital aspect of the process of learning, enabling students to assess their performances, modify their behaviour, and transfer their under- standings. In GfG, feedback occurs both during the activity, as part of regular communicative processes, and after it has been completed, as debriefing activities. Only at the second stage does the teacher become involved.

Interactive Feedback. During the simulation itself, learners receive constant peer evaluation regarding the communication of meaning. There are three main channels available for this in GfG: (a) responses during discussions, (b) reactions to written material, and (c) questions and comments following formal presentations.

Authentic oral communication tasks sensitise students to the formal mech- anisms of discourse cohesion, requiring them to employ the devices speakers use to relate to one another and jointly sustain interaction (e.g., Stubbs 1983). They also serve an important role in self-assessment as participants learn about themselves from the reactions of others. Similarly, information provided in the form of questions following oral presentations is very valuable. Formal presentations need to be lucid and well-organised, and feedback under these circumstances gives the speaker an idea of the communicative effectiveness of a presentation and the main areas of interest and relevance to his or her audience.

Participants also benefit horn oral and written peer feedback on their re-


ports, memos, and minutes. These documents contain important information required for readers’ own identities and role performances, and this ensures they receive close scrutiny. Any vagueness, inaccuracy, or failure to communicate is seized upon, which encourages writers to present their ideas clearly. Speaking, listening, reading, and writing tasks are therefore invested with an immediate purpose, encouraging learners to focus on meaning and to communicative effectively.

Debriefing. The purpose of postactivity feedback is to focus on the experience and provide a relatively systematic review of what was accomplished and learnt. This activity is essential to gain an overall view of the exercise and to complete what Jaques (1985) calls the eqtwiential learning cycle, preparing learners for the next experience. Participants have to make sense of the exercise by interpreting actions and finding connections which will make the event transferable. Unfortunately, debriefing activities are difficult to manage constructively, and teachers often comment that these sessions can have a negative focus and are the least satisfactory part of the course.

Debriefing takes a variety of forms. Some teachers favour a plenary discussion of what happened to enable students to reflect critically on the activity, describe their individual approaches and decisions, and discover others’ reactions to events. General principles such as group organisation, planning, real- ism, effectiveness, and outcomes can also be explored at this time. This allows a comparison between GfG and the real world, assisting the transfer of knowledge to other contexts, Finally, an attempt is made to discuss the language used in order to clarify learning points and rectify weaknesses in students’ communicative performances.

In addition to discussions, students view a videotaped playback of the formal oral presentations and can comment on their effectiveness. It is useful for individual presenters to receive peer evaluation on performance aspects of their talks while providing them with an opportunity to see themselves as others see them. Evaluation sheets are provided to help viewers organise their observations. Finally, students also receive more conventional feedback in the form of corrected written work, an oral presentation assessment sheet (Ap- pendix 2), and an evaluation of their performance on the project as a whole (Appendix 3).

Evaluation and Discussion

The field of ESP has generally been slow to recognise that the process of communication is also a learning process and that students learn by cornrnu- nicating. The syllabus outlined here seeks to provide appropriate conditions for this. The content complexity and task variety encourage the use of language for genuine communicative and conceptual purposes and promote conditions of natural language acquisition. In particular, the scale of the activity opens up greater possibilities for interaction and avoids the potential artificiality of


shorter activities which tend to concentrate on specific areas of language, content, or function (Brumfit 1984: 73).

Breen (1987a: 160) suggests that plans for a process syllabus should “represent knowledge of how correctness, appropriacy and meaningfulness can be simultaneously achieved during communication within events and situations.” GfG adheres to this principle by stressing the value of involvement with direct experience activities. Consequently, there are few purely pedagogical exercises, and stress is on developing the communication skills necessary to effectively deal with immediate contextual demands. Communication is central to the exercise and is accomplished through interactive problem solving, developing social relations, and using a variety of different means to locate, process, and impart information. By linking the tasks to form a progressive series, a realistic context is provided in which opportunities arise for communicative practice and language acquisition.

We believe that GfG demonstrates the value and viability of a process syllabus in an ESP situation. This is not a research experiment, however. The difficulties associated with formally evaluating a communicative curriculum in action have been raised elsewhere (e.g., Beretta & Davis 1985; Murphy 1985). Nevertheless, it is possible to evaluate the course in terms of the curriculum validation procedures recommended by Rea (1987). We will use her approach and briefly consider GfG in terms of construct- and criteria-related validity.

Construct validity can be checked by reference to both content and process aspects of the course. Content-referenced validity refers to the extent to which materials and tasks match curriculum specifications. Designers and con- tributors to GfG have worked closely with the client faculty and have tried to reflect the aims of the Accountancy and Business Studies (ABS) department. These aims refer to equipping graduates “with the capacity to think for themselves” and “the confidence to implement decisions arrived at in the real world” (Papua New Guinea University of Technology 1989). ABS stresses the importance of assisting students to move to “an evaluative and self-activating stage,” a point picked up by GfG teachers who stress that “the course is not designed to teach grammar and spelling but communication skills that will be relevant to your studies and future professional lives” (LA221 course handout).

GfG fulfills these aims as it requires students to work on problems and make decisions independently and in groups. The course materials are taken from the real world, and activities such as participating in discussions and meetings, reading documents, and writing memos and reports all provide a rehearsal for the students’ work after graduation. On the negative side, GfG perhaps errs too much on the side of future orientation and fails to sufficiently address students’ immediate needs for university study and communication skills. This is a point taken up by students in course evaluation forms.

Process-referenced validity examines how the organisational principles of the course are met in the learning which takes place. We have already discussed the ordering of tasks in terms of the complexity of psycholinguistic processing and described how tasks cohere and help to integrate the structure


of the course. The discussion has also considered what learners do with the learning tasks and how tasks influence learner activities and roles. GfG appears to exhibit a high degree of validity in these respects. In addition, it is clear that students are exposed to a wide range of different written and spoken input material and produce a variety of outputs, both within groups and individually. The learning context simulates an environment which demands the use of business English and communication skills. Unfortunately, maintaining the authenticity of this context does not allow for the recycling and improvement of skills. Students are not required to apply their learning in other situations nor to redraft written work, and this can be considered a weakness of the course.

Criterion-referenced validity refers to the match between the course and the needs of the students and reties on information provided by tutors and leam- ers. The overall impressions of the course by teachers working on it have generally been favourable, and ABS staff have commented on the improvement of students in performing the specific skills taught on the course. One area of doubt, however, has concerned opportunities to correct errors and meet students’ needs for adequate feedback. Video replays, peer evaluation, and a comment sheet allow a great deal of feedback for the formal oral component, but occasions to correct and respond to written work and informal oral interaction are seen as limited. Lecturers believe that a great deal of complex and meaningful interaction occurs during GfG meetings and consider that modelling and error correction are inappropriate. However, stressing fluency during discussions has meant that accuracy is ignored until the formal presentation. So, while GfG is set up so that the success of the communication is revealed in the final reports, some staff have continued to be uneasy about abandoning more traditional methods of error correction and the possibility of group work reinforcing poor grammar (cf. Prabhu 1987: 82).

Group work reveals other problems, perceived by both staff and students. Individual contributions are not easy to assess, and there are occasional com- plaints from learners about “hitchhikers” who fail to contribute to the group effort. This is noted by teachers when the final marks for participation are allotted (Appendix 3), and the formal course requirements help to ensure increased participation as deadlines approach. Another problem of group work is that, while most students see English as the appropriate language for business communication and prefer to use it for their role performances, some students use their other common language, pidgin, for discussion. It was difficult to argue with one student, however, who believed that authenticity required the use of pidgin to present a “village councillor’s” case.

Staff meet regularly throughout the course. Teachers new to GfG are ini- tially apprehensive about student motivation and their own role in the activity. However, once the course is running they are invariably surprised and im- pressed by the high level of learner commitment, which often involves students meeting in their free time and arriving early to set up the class for private discussions. Students seem prone to the same initial nervousness and scepti- cism. The postcourse evaluation sheets reveal a generally positive response to the course however, as most students find the course enjoyable and believe it


develops their oral skills. Student perceptions also suggest that the course is offered at an appropriate level and that tasks are sufficiently challenging, al- though a number of learners feel that more basic practice in writing could be provided.

Conclusion

Go for Gold provides a rich learning environment for participants to experience an abbreviated form of socialisation (Petranek 1989). GfG structures and compresses the process of interpreting and creating worlds for learners while providing a fruitful context for language use and acquisition. Participation in the exercise enables students to develop a range of language and communication skills and acquire knowledge about themselves.

The syllabus integrates the four macro-skills and provides a context which allows learners to creatively engage in a range of relevant genres and language uses. Many of the tasks provide a “rehearsal” function (Widdowson 1987: 681, establishing the conditions for learners to approximate the kind of behaviours required of them beyond the language class in both academic and professional environments.

The activities which collectively comprise Go for Gold draw on real world contexts and problems, and develop language skills which relate to learners’ current and eventual real world communicative needs. The acquisition of linguistic and communicative skills is achieved through focusing on language- based tasks involving exchanging information, resolving problems, and agreeing on solutions. The course is an example of a successful working process syllabus, and serves as a model for ESP syllabus designers wishing to set up similar courses in the future.

(Received May 1992)

REFERENCES

Barron, C. (1991). Material thoughts: ESP and culture. English for .Specifc PuQoses, 10, 173-187.

BBC. (1983). Bid for power [Television series]. London: BBC English by Television.

Beretta, A., & Davis, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. ELT Journal, 39(2), 212-127.

Bloor, M., & St John, M. J. (1988). Project writing: The marriage of process and product. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: Process and product (ELT Documents 129, pp. 85-94). London: The British Council.

Breen, M. P. (1987a). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20(3), 157-174.

Breen, M. P. (1987b). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Brurrht, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

CandIin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candkn & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Greenwood, J. (1985). Bangalore revisited: A reluctant complaint. ELT Jour- nal, 39(4), 268-273.

GreIIet, F. (1981). Develqbing reading skills. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

HerboIich, J. B. (1985). Box kites. In J. Swales (Ed.), Episodes in ESP (pp. 132-134). Hemel Hempstead, England: Prentice-Hall.

Hyland, K. (1991). Developing oral presentation skills. English Teaching Fo- rum, 29(a), 35-37.

Jaques, D. (1985). Debriefing debriefing. In M. van Ments & K. Heamden (Eds.), Effective use of games and simulations (pp. 57-65). Loughborough, England: SAGSET.

Jones, K. (1982). Simulations in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Marshall, S., & Wikiarns, N. (1986). Exercises in teaching communication. London: Kogan Page.

Murphy, D. F. (1985). Evaluation in language teaching: Assessment, account- ability and awareness. In J. C. AIderson (Ed.), Practical papers in English language education (Vol. 6, pp. l-17). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Nunan, D. (1985). Language teaching course design: Trends and issues. Ade- laide, Australia: National Curricuhun Research Centre.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Papua New Guinea University of Technology. (1989). Handbook. Lae: Author. Petranek, C. F. (1989). Knowing oneself: A symbolic interactionist view of

simulation. In D. Crookall & D. Saunders (Eds.), Communication and simulation (pp. 109-116). Clevedon, England: MultilinguaI Matters.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Rea, P. (1987). Communicative curriculum validation: A task-based ap- proached. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 147-165). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Robinson, P. (1980). ESP (English for special pu@oses). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

ScarceIla, R. (1978). Socio-drama for social interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 41-46.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Sturtridge, G. (1977). Using simulation in teaching English for specific pur-

poses. In S. Holden (Ed.), English for Specific Pzqboses (pp. 32-34). Lon- don: Modem English Publications.

White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Widdowson, H. (1983). Learningpu@ose and language use. Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.


Widdowson, H. (1987). Aspects of syllabus design. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Lan- guuge syllabuses: State of the art (pp. 65-89). Singapore: RELC.

Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Wright, T. (1987). Instructional task and discoursal outcome. In C. CandIin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 47-68). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Appendix 1 Go For Gold: Role Information

Here are suggestions for the kind of information and work expected from each participant in the project.

A. Members of the Government and Island Group

1. Minister for Miner& and Energy. The major concern of the minister is to ensure that PNG gets the best deal from the mining project. To do this, he or she must first of all present the government’s policy on everything that is relevant to mining so that everyone (including the companies interested in developing the mine) is aware of the government’s position. Some of the information to be made available is:

(a) Government policy on mining. (i) Shareholdiig in mining company. (ii) Taxes. (Will there be exemptions for companies investing in high risk projects?)

(iii) Sub-contracting. Government’s position on small scale projects at the mine. (b) Government policy on employment and training of nationals. (c) Government policy on employment of expatriates. (d) The kind of assistance (if any) to be given to PNG companies bidding for mining projects. (e) The contribution expected from the mining company to the local people living around the

mine.

Assessment of this role is based on: 1. A report stating government’s views. 2. An oral presentation of government’s views. 3. An oral announcement of the government’s decision. 4. The written text of this announcement. 5. Contribution to the negotiations and discussions.

2. Ministerfor Environment & Cawrvation. The main concern of this minister is the environment. He or she must ensure that the environment around the mine is not contaminated or destroyed to the point of endangering the lifestyle or livelihood of the people and the wildlife that depend on it. Some of the things the minister must be concerned about are:

(a) Preservation of sacred sights (if applicable). (b) Prevent the extinction of wikfkfe. (c) Ensure the local people have access to their hunting grounds. (d) Ensure that long term plans are made for the period after all the minerals are extracted and

the mine is shut. (e) Guidelines and penalties for the careful handling and transportation of dangerous chemicals

to and from the site. (f) Disposal of waste products.


Assessment of this role is based on: 1. A report stating government’s views. 2. An oral presentation of government’s views. 3. An oral announcement of the government’s decision. 4. The written text of this announcement. 5. Contribution to the negotiations and discussions.

3. Provinciul Premier. The main interest of this person is to ensure that his or her government and province get the best deal from the project. Areas of concern will be:

(a) How much the provincial government and people will get in terms of: (i) Taxes, share of profits, royalties, etc. (ii) Employment opportunities for local people. (iii) The creation of business opportunities in the province.

(b) Compensation to landowners and those living in the immediate area. k) Assistance with infrastructure and the provision of services to the people.

Assessment of this role is based on: 1. A report stating provincial government’s views. 2. An oral presentation of these views. 3. An announcement of the provincial government’s reaction to the decision. 4. The written text of this announcement. 5. Contribution to the negotiations and discussions.

4. Locaf Villuge Councillors. The counciflors are the representatives of the communities most affected by the mine, and their primary objective is to ensure that these communities are ade- quately compensated for the use of their land. They must therefore ensure:

(a) Adequate compensation if resettlement is necessary. (b) Provision of necessary services and infrastructure such as schools, aid posts, roads,

bridges, house, etc. (c) Assistance in business ventures. (d) Preference in employment opportunities at the mine, particularly in unskifled and semiskilled

jobs. (e) Protection and preservation of important cultural sites. (0 Preservation of access to hunting grounds, forests, gardens, rivers, sea, etc. and protection

of traditional lands from outsiders.

Assessment of this role is based on: 1. A report stating the views of the local communities. 2. An oral presentation of these views. 3. An announcement of the communities’ reaction. 4. The written text of this announcement. 5. Contribution to the negotiations and discussions.

B. Government Consultants

The cons&ants act for the government and report to it. They have to provide an objective assessment and should:

(a) find information on Lii Island, mining techniques, and sources of finance. (b) Hold discussions with the government and island group. (c) Prepare a report covering the following areas:

(i) Location of the new township/mining camp.


(ii) Financial arrangements for the project. (iii) Rough estimates of likely returns for the government, company, and local people.

Assessment of this role is based on: 1. A bid specification report. 2. An oral presentation of these specifications. 3. Contribution to the negotiations and discussions.

C. The Consortia

These are groups of three or four individuals representing different companies. Their objective is to win the contract for the project. They can include:

A mining company, responsible for technical and environmental aspects. A civil engineering company, responsible for infrastructure aspects. A management company, responsible for financial and political aspects

Areas of concern will include: (a) Whether to offer shares to the PNG government and local interests. (b) Subcontracting policy - the areas where local companies will receive preference. (c) Environmental matters and pollution control. (d) The contribution to the economic and social development of the area. fe) Infrastructure development. (0 Compensation to landowners and returns to government and province.

Assessment of this role is based on: 1. A bid proposal report. 2. An oral presentation of this bid. 3. Contribution to the negotiations and discussions.

Appendix 2 Prepared Talks Evaluation Form

Name Tie: Start CONTENT Degree of interest Amount of information related ORGANIZATION Evidence of Structure

Introduction Body Conclusion

Logical Development MANNER OF DELIVERY Gestural Fluency Eye Contact clarity Fluency of Speech VISUAL AIDS Orientation to Visual Aids Quality of Visual Aids COMMENTS

Role Fish

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

TOTAL


Appendix 3 Go for Gold: Assessment Scheme

Name Role Possible Your

Written Work mark mark 1. Statement of View on project 30 2. Text of decision announcement 10 3. Text of reaction to decision 10 4. Consultants’ Bid Specification 40 5. Consortia Bid proposal 40

SUBTOTAL 40 Oral Work 1. Contribution to discussions

and negotiations 20 2. Public announcements 20

SUBTOTAL 40 Participation Marks Contribution, leadership, and

organisational skills SUBTOTAL 20 Total Mark: Written - + Oral ~ + Participation = p/loo

Comments

Ken Hyland is Head of English as an International Language at Intema- tional Pacific College in New Zealand. He has an MA in Applied Linguistics and has taught EFL and ESP in Britain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea. He has published articles in the fields of CALL, genre analysis, and second language teaching.

Fiona Hyland is a lecturer at International Pacific College in New Zealand. She has taught EFL and ESP for 12 years in Britain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea. She is currently involved in setting up a new degree in English as an International Language.