115. the syllabus design of english for secretary

7/27/2019 115. the Syllabus Design of English for Secretary

1/22

1

THE SYLLABUS DESIGN OF ENGLISH FOR SECRETARY

Andreas Mari Sudarto

English Teacher of the Tarakanita Secretarial Academy, E-mail : [email protected]

Abstract

Two major phenomena have characterized English language teaching for the past

two decades, firstly the paradigm shift between Audio Lingual Approach and

Communicative Approach, and secondly the emergence of English for Specific Purposes.

In redesigning the syllabus of English for Secretary, one should firstly consider current

trends in language teaching and secondly the clear concept of English for Specific

Purposes. This paper extensively discusses major trends in language teaching and mind-maps the specific nature of English for Secretary. It is hoped that these two major

considerations will provide the theoretical background, perspective, and guidelines in

redesigning a fashionable syllabus of English.

1. INTRODUCTION

The unsatisfactory result of English language teaching in secretarial academies has

been voiced more often these days. This may primarily be due to inappropriate way the

syllabus has been designed and the way teaching materials have been selected. Examining

the English teaching syllabi of Tarakanita, Saint Mary, and Don Bosco secretarial academies,

one could identify two major problems. The first problem is that the syllabi reflect the

designers inadequate awareness of the current concepts in language teaching. The second

problem is the unclear mapping the designers have on English for Secretary.

This paper will therefore discuss two major issues: contemporary thoughts about

English language teaching and the concepts of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), under

which English for secretary is domiciled. It is hoped that this discussion will enlighten the

English teachers, especially those in secretarial academies, of what is happening in the

English language teaching field. They may then be aware of the paradigm shift existing in

ELT and they may then adopt the appropriate way of designing the syllabus, developing the

teaching materials, as well as interacting methods in the classroom. It is further hoped that

they no longer cling to the English teaching policies and methodologies they learned from the

college many years ago, as such policies and methodologies may have gotten out of fashion

today.


2/22

2

The prime concern of this paper is to provide extensive discussions about ESP and

the way English for the Secretaries is categorized. English teachers in secretarial academies

may then have the right reference in choosing the materials to teach and in presenting the

materials in the classroom. Only after the specific purposes of the English language teaching

are identified can one begin to redesign the syllabi, develop the teaching materials, and

present the material appropriately.

II. CONTEMPORARY THOUGHTS ABOUT LANGUAGE TEACHING

Approaches to English language teaching have changed over time. One approach may

be popular for a particular time, but may then be replaced by another, which people think is

better. The choice of one approach over another is determined by careful intellectual

considerations inspired by seminars, studies, and researches on language teaching or learning.

When designing an ELT syllabus, one should be aware of the right approach to be adopted.

The Communicative approach (CA) is the one currently in fashion. The primary

reason for the birth of the CA was the dissatisfaction people felt about the old approach(s).

The critics towards the previously predominant Audio Lingual Approach (ALA) came from

two fronts. Firstly, it was Chomsky who in 1959 savagely attacked the basic theory and

nature of language learning on which ALA was based. Chomsky (1966:153; 1973:233-240)

rejected the structuralist approach and the behavioristic theory of language learning. He

claimed that language acquisition did not take place through habit formation, but through

innovation, formation of new sentences and new patterns in accordance with rules of great

abstraction and intricacy. Chomsky argued that language acquisition was far too complex to

take place through habit formation. Human beings ought to have some innate capacity to

learn the basic patterns of language.

Influenced by Chomsky, language experts like Richards (1985:59) and Larsen

Freeman (1987:3), favoured the conscious understanding of rules over the unconscious

learning through pattern practices. They believed that it was this unconscious

understanding of rules which ultimately led to the production of linguistic competence.

Language learning was no longer seen as habit formation, but a conscious focus on the

language involving the role of abstract mental processes.


3/22

3

The second critic towards ALA came from socio linguist Hymes (1979:7-10) who

distinguished communicative competence from linguistic competence. To Hymes, language

competence did not merely refer to the unconscious knowledge of language structure, but

also to that of how to use it appropriately in a given social context. He claimed that habit

formation would not lead to language competence adequately, because communicative

competence actually involved the learners ability to appropriately use the language systems

within socio-cultural environments. Hence, Hymes added a new dimension in language

learning: the speaker-listener relationship. A child learned a language through contacts with

the community. He was not molded by conditioning and reinforcement. The learner was now

seen as a communicative being and the socio-cultural factors had explicit and constitutive

role to play in learning. The acquisition of language competence necessitated the socio-

cultural features.

Inspired by the above criticism launched against the ALA, new thoughts in language

learning had received favorable considerations. Linguists, teachers, syllabus designers,

textbook writers had considered the notions of communicative competence and performance,

language usage and use, language forms, notions, and functions which would be elaborated in

the following sections.

2.1 Competence and Performance

The concept of language competence and performance was originally introduced by

Chomsky (1965:8-10, 1973:212-213). He defined language competence as the speaker-

hearers knowledge of his language, the underlying system of rules mastered by the speaker-

hearer. He identified the actual use of a language performance of a person, although it might

not always, reflected his language competence.

Hymes (1979:5-6), however, identified competence as the overall underlying

linguistic knowledge and ability which included the concept of appropriateness and

acceptability in the application of such knowledge in social interaction. The acceptability and

appropriateness in the application of the language systems should be seen from the following

four parameters. The first parameter was whether or not something was formally possible.

Hymes further argued that an expression was formally possible if it was grammatically

correct; it was impossible if it was not. The second parameter was whether or not something


4/22

4

was feasible. In this case, a sentence might be grammatically possible, yet might be hardly

feasible.

From the psycho linguistic view, human brain was such an entity that it could only

perceive and accepted a limited group of linguistic items. It could not, for instance,

accommodate very long sentences. The third parameter was whether or not something was

appropriate. A sentence might be grammatically, and psychologically feasible, yet might not

be appropriate to contexts. The last parameter was whether something was in fact done. To

Hymes, an expression had to be seen from its probability of occurrence. It should be seen if

it was linked to produce and interpret actually occurring reality. Language competence was

linked to accepted usage.

Hymess concept of competence has put language teaching in a new perspective. To

be able to use a language does not only involve the application of linguistic rules, but also the

sociological and psychological rules. In other words, the rules of language use play more

important role than the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar are useless without rules of

use. This concept of communicative competence suddenly shifts the focus of language

learning from grammatical-lexical features to sociological-philosophical or socio-cultural

features. English teacher should now be aware of the need to place linguistic theory within

general socio-cultural and psychological theories

2.2. Usage and Use

The concept of usage and use was discussed by Widdowson (1978:1-21). He argued

that the aim of language learning should not only be the ability to produce and understand,

speak and write sentences, but also to use the sentences to communicate effectively in life.

Language acquisition should not only be understood as learning how to compose and

comprehend correct sentences as isolated linguistic units of random occurrence, but also

learning how to use the sentences appropriately to achieve communicative purposes. This

implied that the ability to produce grammatical or correct sentences did not guarantee

communicative ability.

For Widdowson, to produce grammatically correct sentence was to manifest the

knowledge of a language system. He identified this knowledge as USAGE. And, in real life

situation, communication involved the implementation of this knowledge to achieve some


5/22

5

kind of communicative purpose. This was what he called language USE, the manifestation of

abstract systems of language in a meaningful communicative behavior.

Language usage is now viewed as one aspect of performance which shows how well

the language user demonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules. Language use is another

aspect, which shows how well the language user demonstrates his ability to use his

knowledge of linguistic rules for effective communication. Thus, language acquisition is

made evident through simultaneous manifestation of the language system as usage and its

realization as use.

Pattern practice which used to be the most important feature of ALA was basically

grammar or usage-oriented. A strong criticism to this drill came from Newmark and Reibel (

in Mark Lester, 1970, 228,252) who asserted that structure-oriented drills had shifted the

emphasis of language teaching from mastery of language use to the mastery of language

usage or structure. They argued that preoccupation with linguistic structure had distracted the

teacher and learner from considering that language learning was learning to use it in life.

Systematic organization of grammatical items which characterized ALA syllabus was

UNECESSARY and INSUFFICIENT.

They believed that presentation of instances of language in context was what was

both sufficient and necessary. They argued that the principles of learning between an adult

and a child were basically the same. A child learned a language through mainly social contact

in his life. In other words, Newmark and Reibel objected the painstaking process of learning

through grammar drills, and usage practices which characterized ALA.

In considering items for teaching materials or for syllabus design, Widdowson

(1978), therefore, suggested that items should not be selected because they occurred

frequently as instances of usage, but because they had high potential occurrence as instances

of use, relevant to the learners purpose in learning.

It is, therefore, important for a course designer to identify the particular kinds of

communicative instances, the particular ways of using the language, as a preliminary

preparation of the course. Hence, the designer should think of the areas of use as the basis of

items selection.

On the question of what areas of use most likely relevant, or most suitable for the

learners, Widdowson (1978) suggested that an attempt be made to associate the language


6/22

6

taught with the situations existing outside the classroom, the real world. As an example, he

pointed out that the school was part of the childs real worlds. Widdowson asserted that the

most likely areas to be studied were those of other subjects on the school curriculum. This

did not only ensure the link with reality and the learners own experience, but also provided

language teaching with the most certain means of teaching a language as communication, as

use, rather than simply as usage.

Widdowsons suggestion implies that there should be a close relation between the

English language and the other subjects taught in a school. This is especially true in countries

where English is used as a first language. In countries where English is taught as a second or

foreign language, however, there should be an attempt to relate the teaching of English withthat of subject items. As a consequence, English teachers would have to be familiar with

other subjects taught in the school. By associating the English teaching with the teaching of

other subjects, the objective of language teaching is better achieved, as mastering a language

means knowing the signification sentences have as instances of usage and what value they

take as instances of use.

Winddowson further argued that the teaching of usage which used to preoccupy the

teaching of English under ALA did not guarantee the knowledge of use. On the other hand,

the teaching of language use did seem to guarantee the teaching of usage, as usage was the

necessary part of language use. Widdowson argument implied that the best way of teaching

English as communication was by associating it with the real world, among others with

topics drawn from other subjects on the school curriculum.

2.3. Language Forms and Meanings

Larsen (1984:3) defined the language forms as the actual words, phrases, clauses, and

sentences in a discourse. The grammatical, lexical and phonological structures of the

language were referred to as the surface structure, under which the meaning structure was

conveyed. The semantic proposition, placing emphasis on the mastery of language structures

might only lead to a situation where students developed the ability to produce grammatically

correct sentences, but might not be able to perform simple communicative tasks. The

teaching of English under ALA had led to such a situation, where we find that the students

might be structurally competent but communicatively incompetent.


7/22

7

Learning a language, therefore, does not only aim at the ability to correctly

manipulate the structures of a language, but also to perceive, the meaning structure. This

involves the ability to know the right things to say at the right situation, to produce the

appropriate words and sentences in accordance with the communicative situation. In relation

to the above, Johnson and Morrow (1981:01-11) proposed that an ELT syllabus included a

list of items of meaning or use. It was in this endeavor that the concepts of notions and

function entered the scene of language teaching.

2.4. Notions and Functions

In 1972 as part of the council of Europe work, Wilkins (1976:18) proposed that two

categories of meaning might be suitable for the purpose of making a syllabus design: notions

and functions. These terms, however, were confusing terms, as they were not provided with

clear definitions. Wilkins stated that notions had two categories: semantico-grammatical and

communicative-functional. Johnson and Morrow (1981:2) defined notions as concepts and

they could be easily distinguished from functions.

As a rule of thumb, function can be identified by asking the question, What was the

speakers intention in saying it? Function is the purpose of an expression. The answer to

such a question can be things like to greet, to invite, to express sympathy etc. Hence, it

may be understood that functions in the context of language learning are answers to a

question of what learners need to do with the language. Notions are answers to the question

of what kind of meanings learners need to express in the language.

How functions and notions operate in language use was further illustrated by

Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983:13) who stated that the functional and notional approach to

language learning placed major emphasis on the communicative purposes of a speech act. It

focused on what people wanted to do or what they wanted to accomplish through speech.

Notions were the vocabulary items that might answer the questions who, what, where, when,

how long, how far, how many, etc. Notions were identified as meaning-elements which

might be expressed through nouns, pronouns, verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives,

and adverbs (Johnson and Morrow, 1981:14).


8/22

8

The basic functions to be expressed depend solely on the intention of the speaker,

and, the specific notions employed by the functions depend on the following three major

factors:

a. The persons taking part in the speech event (are they male or female, are they ofthe same age, what social role they play), and their social attitude toward each

other.

b. The place where the conversation takes. Is it in the speakers native land? In a foreigncountry, in a place of worship, at a movie, in a park?

The setting of time: is it taking place in frequent or infrequent occurrence?

c. The topic or activity being discussed. The function, the situation, and the topicdetermine the specific notions which complete the communicative purposes.

III. TEACHING ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

From the above discussion, it is now clear that communicative language teaching is

one which recognizes the analysis of future life situations of the learners as the crucial feature

of language learning. A communicative syllabus design is usually based on a complex and

comprehensive needs analysis. Being communicative can be interpreted as being specific

(being sensitive to the needs of the learners) in their learning of a language. Thus it was CA

that substantially contributed to the learning towards English for Specific Purpose (ESP).

Brumfit (1984:1) confirmed this when he stated that throughout the 1970s, the language

teaching theorists and practitioners excited themselves with course design for Specific

Purposes Language Teaching.

The following illustrates the way ESP came into being and the way it is categorized.

3.1. The Emergence of ESP

The birth of CA in the 1960s provided an opportunity for the emergence of ESP.

Although the teaching of ESP might have been initiated by people long before the birth of the

communicative approach, the first conference on languages for special purposes was not

convened until 1969 (Robinson, 1980:5).


9/22

9

As stated by Hutchinson and Waters (1987:6), ESP was not a planned and coherent

movement. It was rather a phenomenon that grew out of a number of converging trends. The

first trend that brought about the emergence of ESP was the linguistic revolution

characterized by a shift in the focus of language learning from structural features to

communicative features (competence VS performance; usage VS use; forms VS functions,

etc).

The CA essentially concerns with the learners purposes in the use of language in

socio-cultural situations. This leads to the use of authentic (or seemingly authentic) materials

which ultimately ventures to the ESP areas.

The birth of ESP was cultivated by the enormous and unprecedented expansion in

scientific, technical, and economic movement on the international scale. This generated a

demand for English, as the language of the superpower. More and more people wanted to

learn English not for pleasure, prestige, or literary purposes, but rather because English was

the key to science, technology, and commerce. The purpose of learning English was then

more specified.

The new generation of learners knew what they learned English specifically for. The

oil boom taking place in the early 1970s resulted in a massive flow of funds and western

expertise to the oil rich countries. ELT suddenly enjoyed a booming business as well. This

was accelerated by the advancement of telephone and television technology.

The surge for cost effective courses led to an approach devoted to the specific

purposes of groups of learners. The practice of English for special purposes gradually spread

throughout the world because of the tremendous need to use English internationally in the

conducts of science, technology, trade, or commerce. Learners in the Middle East, Asia, and

South America were seeking English language proficiency in specific domains of use to

serve their specific needs.

Robinson (1983:160-161) commented on the close link between CA and ESP. She

stated that the spurt of exciting development taking place in ESP then could be seen as a

realization of the new Communicative Approach. CA and ESP are seen to have much in

common. The concept of needs analysis which was central in ESP was also seen as a central

tool in CA. She further elaborated that the use to which learners intend to put language was

frequently associated with occupational, vocational, academic or professional requirements.


10/22

10

Without the knowledge of a foreign language, their work performance could be adversely

affected or restricted. Once the learners needs were clear, learning aims could be defined in

terms of these specific purposes to which the language would be put.

To further appreciate the place of ESP within the Communicative approach the

following is an attempt to define what ESP is.

3.2. Defining English for Specific Purposes

To produce a straight forward and simple definition of ESP is not quite an easy thing

to do. Instead, the following will illustrate the different views among language experts on

what ESP is. It is hoped that the nature and characteristics of ESP will accordingly be

revealed.

On the question of what ESP is, Carver (1983:131-137) contrasted it with TENOR

(Teaching English for No Obvious Reason). What he meant by TENOR was the teaching of

English without any specific reason, emphasizing it on the linguistic competence. Carver also

contrasted ESP with the common core English. The contrast might rest upon a confusion of

categories. ESP was categorized in term of purposes, common core English was

distinguished by its frequency of forms. This contrast implied a more positive distinction in

methodology. ESP was taught in a context of purpose, common core English was not. Carver

contrasted ESP with General English. General English was context dependent (good for all

context): ESP was presented in a specific contract. Hutchinson and Waters (1987:21) defined

ESP as an approach to language teaching which aimed to meet the needs of particular

learners. It was an approach directed by specific and apparent reasons for learning. Mackay

and Mountford (1978:2) defined ESP as the teaching of English for clearly a utilitarian

purpose. This purpose was usually defined with reference to some occupational requirements

(e.g. for international telephone operators, civil airlines pilots) or for vocational training

programs (e.g. for hotel and catering staff, or some academic or professional study).

The following are the characteristics of ESP programs:

- the close association of special purpose language teaching with adult learners, and

- the important auxiliary role that the English language is called upon to play in such cases.


11/22

11

On the special purpose of language learning, Mackay and Mountford stated that

language learners required English as a means of furthering their specialist education or as a

means of performing a social or working role.

Commenting on the views of Mackay and Mountford on the special purpose

language learning, Robinson (1980:5-6) distinguished English for special purposes from

English for specific purposes. She argued that the word special suggested special languages

(restricted languages as that in telexes) while the words specific focused on the purpose of

the learner in learning the language and referred to the whole range of language resources.

She further defined a general English course as one which was education-for-life, culture and

literature oriented in which language itself was the subject matter and the purpose of thecourse. She further clarified that ESP was an approach to ELT( English Language Teaching)

where the teaching of English was not viewed as an end in itself, but as an essential means to

a clearly identifiable goal. While a typical general English course was that given at secondary

schools, starting with beginners and bringing them to a reasonable competence in all areas of

the language, ESP was tailored to adopt this competence to the learners particular field of

work or study. Robinson concluded that an ESP course was purposeful and was aimed at the

successful performance of occupational or educational roles. This course was usually based

on a rigorous analysis of the students needs and should be tailor-made. As if summing up the

above views, Streven (1980:109) offered the following provisions for an ESP instruction:

- devised to meet the learners particular needs;

- related in themes and topics to designated occupations or areas of study;

- selective (i.e. not general) as to language content;

-when indicated, restricted as to the language skills included.

In regards to the syllabus design, Munby (1978:2-3) stated that ESP courses should

be those where the syllabus and materials were determined in all essentials by the prior

analysis of the communication needs of the learner.


12/22

12

3.3. Mapping of English for Specific Purposes

In designing the English teaching syllabus for a secretarial academy, English teachers

who are entrusted with the task, are usually confronted with a question of the kind of English

the secretaries should master. Even after knowing the nature of ESP, teachers still feel like

entering a jungle of ESP terms. Hence, teachers still find terms like EST (English for Science

and Technology), EOP (English for Occupational Purposes), VESL (Vocational English as a

Second Language), EBE (English for Business and Economics) , Business English, English

for the office, English for commerce, English for executives, and many more. They are

confused and do not know how one is related with the other. The following, therefore, is an

attempt to provide a mapping of the specific English categories, directing the designer ofEnglish for the secretary syllabus to the approximate direction.

There had been attempts made by language experts to categorize ESP, but

Hutchinson and Waters ESP tree was the most comprehensive and the easiest to understand

(1987:16,17) The family tree showed clearly the status of the citizens of ESP and its satellite

settlements in relation to the general world of ELT. The tree shows some of the common

divisions of ELT and the specific domain of the teaching of English for Secretary could then

be identified. (See Hutchinson and Waters ELT Tree)

(Tolong atur agar gambar pohon penuh ada di halaman berikut)

At the top of the tree, individual branches of ESP courses are shown, where English

for the secretary is one. Below this level, two major branches of EAP and EOP are shown.

These are the two divisions most ESP experts agree. Learners generally need English either

for work or for academic purposes. EAP stands for English for Academic Purposes. These

are the English courses for those pursuing further academic studies. EOP stands for English

for Occupational Purposes. EOP is also known as EVP (English for Vocational Purposes) or

VESL (Vocational English for Second Language).

The more general categories below this level are three large categories, EST (English

for Science and Technology), EBE (English for Business and Economics), and ESS (English

for Social Sciences).


13/22

13

Figure 1: The ELT Tree (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987)


14/22

14

As we go down the tree, we can see that ESP is just one branch of EFL(English as a

Foreign Language) and ESL (English as a Second Language), which are the main branches of

ELT. A tree cannot survive without roots. Communication and learning have been

established as the roots of ELT.

Hutchinsons tree has certainly helped locate the position of English for the

Secretary. Assuming that one climbs up a tree to get at the English for the Secretary, he will

first of all find the big general trunk of language teaching or learning, where he will find ELT

as a further branch upward. Moving further upward, the climber will find two branches of

ELT: ESL and EFL. Which branch should the climber take? In the case of language teaching

in Indonesia, the climber should climb up the EFL branch. In Indonesia, English is learned asa foreign language, not as a second language. A further climb up the EFL branch, the climber

will have to take the ESP branch and on the question of which ESP category English for the

secretary belongs to, the climber can easily identify it as a branch of EOP. The climber will

finally reach the destination.

After getting at the English for the secretary category, the next question the syllabus

designer should ask would probably be what other branches of EOP is English for the

secretary closely related with? As in a tree, the branches, the twigs and the leaves are

generally inter-mingled with those of other branches. Leaves and twigs are usually very

closely associated. Unfortunately Hutchinson and Waters do not seem to elaborate further.

3.4. Business English and Related Categories

As there has been too little research available, to satisfactorily define English for the

secretaries and underpin the related course design is not quite an easy thing to do. On the

question of what other EOP categories are English for the secretary closely associated to, St.

John (1996:3-4) identified some types of English grouped under Business English. The

following illustration (figure 2) shows how business English is categorized.

Like Hutchinson, St. John classified ESP into EST, EBE, and ESS. EBE was further

sub-categorized into EOP and EAP. The EOP sub-division was also known as ESBP (English

for Specific Business Purpose).

Business English, however, through time, evolves to be synonymous with ESBP.

Some people, however, choose to call this type English for business Professionals. English

for the secretary falls under this category, grouped together with English for the executives or


15/22

15

management. Grouped under this category are Telephone English, English for Cashiers,

Office English, Import & Export English, English for Commerce, English business

Correspondence, English for Finance and Banking, English for travelers, etc.

Business English can be classified into oral and written. Oral Business English

covers oral business communication such as face to face and telephone conversation,

negotiation, interview, public speech, and public presentation. Written business English

covers written communication such as short messages, memorandum, notices, press releases,

forms, agenda, minutes of meeting, travel itinerary, reports, proposals, speech script, and

correspondence, including E-mail.

Figure 2: Mapping of Business English (St. John, 1996)


16/22

16

5. English for Secretaries

Mackay and Mountford (1978:6) stated that what constituted language variation was

the use to which language was put in particular circumstances by particular users. English for

the secretary could then be identified as the English language used by secretaries and

administrative professionals in their communication process in the work place.

To teach English for the secretary is therefore to equip the secretary with the English

language skills needed to perform her communicative tasks in the work place. Salim and

Toren (1981: 13) stated that the secretarys communicative tasks related very much with the

functions of the secretary and thus depended on the positions level held.

In general secretarial positions are categorized into three groups: those holding

clerical or junior secretarial position, usually identified as secretary to lower managers; those

holding secretarial or junior administrative positions, known as secretary to middle managers;

and those holding executive or administrative Assistant positions, generally attached to

higher or top managers. In teaching English for the secretary, therefore, one should have a

clear picture of the communicative profile of each secretarial or administrative position level.

From the communicative profile of the secretary, the teachers should then identify the

language and communicative competence that the learners should acquire.

From a variety of course programs offered by a variety of secretarial colleges, the

following reflects the overall competence profile of secretaries or administrative staffs in all

levels. This may help syllabus designers of English for secretary in determining what

communicative competence profile is necessary for each group of secretaries.

To identify the language competence of each group of secretaries, it may be

necessary for the syllabus designer to refer to Munby s (1978) Taxonomy of Language

Skills. Further, to determine the communicative profile of secretaries in each level of

position, Munby provided an instrument by which a needs analysis could be made. Munbys

instrument basically identified the following aspects:

a. Who the participant is (in this case, the secretarys identity)b. The purpose of communicationc. The setting of communicationd. Who the secretary is interacting with


17/22

17

e. The instrument used in communicationf. The dialect to be usedg. The target level of language acquisitionh. Communicative events

An attempt has been made to identify the overall competence profile of

administrative professionals which may help syllabus designers in pin-pointing the

communicative competence required of secretaries in each level of position. This Job

Competence Profile (Figure 3) has been drawn up by consulting a variety of course designs,

modules, and training programs for secretaries and administration staffs. It is hoped that the

designers will be in a position to identify the communicative knowledge and skills a secretary

will need to acquire to be successful in performing her secretarial and administrative duties.

IV. CONCLUSION

The introduction to the new concepts of language competence and performance,

language use and usage, language forms and meanings implies that a shift in emphasis took

place in language learning which consequently affects the ways ELT syllabi are designed.What items are to be listed in a syllabus depends very much on the philosophy or outlook the

designer has on language teaching. The concepts of ESP further helps syllabus designer in

identifying the specific language needs of a secretary in her work place and therefore help in

determining the language items to be included in the syllabus.

ALA used to see language as consisting of hierarchically organized strata, each

dealing with linguistic items like phonemes, morphemes, and syntactical patterns (Larsen

Freeman, 1987:4). The syllabus for an English course was then organized around linguistic

structures, carefully graded in a sequence from simple to complex. The structural syllabus

designer would be in a position to know which grammar items his students had learned and

he would select the remainder of the structures. His syllabus would include all the

grammatical items which his students have yet to learn. Works on contrastive analysis will

help identify which structural features are to be learned first, and which may be learned later.

The current thoughts in language learning have accommodated the concepts of not

only forms but also notions and functions. Any syllabus designed to achieve communicative


18/22

18

competence as its goal must include these three interacting dimensions. The task of designing

a communicative syllabus is consequently more complex than that of a structural syllabus.

The syllabus designer should carefully identify which forms, functions, and notions are to be

listed in a syllabus. Johnson & Morrow (1981:6-7) identify meaning-based items (notions

and functions) from the language needs of the groups of learners. They define language needs

as the requirements which arise in the social lives of individual and groups. The forms,

notions, and functions are identified by looking at the situations in which the students will

want to use the foreign language. In the case of designing the English syllabus for the

secretary, one should identify the likely communicative situations a secretary will be

involved in performing her office tasks.

The first thing a syllabus designer should do in designing the syllabus of English for

the secretary is to identify the specific nature and the common set of the secretarys language

needs. By analyzing the typical office situations and the types of jobs a secretary may be

required to perform, a syllabus designer will be in a position to establish the common core

of the English materials relevant to the secretary. Munbys needs analysis instrument will

help the syllabus designer in accomplishing this task. Application of this instrument may

identify the learners profile of communication needs.

Once this is accomplished, the syllabus designer may then move on figuring out the

kinds of language skills they will have to master. Hence the designer will be able to

determine which language forms, notions, and functions are to be included in the language

activities. He may then be able to draw up a list of these items. This can be accomplished by

matching between the communicative profile and the taxonomy of language skills.

The last thing to do would be to determine the degree of skills with which a

successful learner will be expected to acquire. This has something to do with the question of

how well the learner has to do all that have been specified. For this purpose books on

secretarial duties will help the designer in determining tasks to be performed by secretaries in

each level of her position. The designer will then be able to draw up a language competence

profile for each level of the secretarial position. The English language competence profile

for junior secretarial position may be identified as foundation level; that of senior secretarial

and administrative positions may be identified as standard level; and that of top secretarial

and administrative positions as advanced level.


19/22

19

A syllabus design which accommodates current concepts of English language

teaching is hoped to be a starting point for improving the overall process of English language

learning in a secretarial academy. Providing the students with higher competence in English

is a major contribution in making them bilingual secretaries who will hopefully survive in the

global competition.

Figure 3a.: JOB COMPETENCE PROFILE I: SECRETARY TO LOWER MANAGER

Position Duties Skills/knowledge Qualities/Attitudes

*Audio typist

* Word ProcessingOperator

*Clerical Assistant

*Admin Clerk

*Receptionist

*Front Desk

Operator

*Office Support

Assistant

* Data Entry-

Specialist

* Etc.

* Transcribing fromrecorded messages,

typing andproducing texts,

providing support in

inputting from a

variety of resourcesinto a computer

database (data

entry), creating,editing, and

proofreading a

variety ofdocuments

*Receiving/directing

and greetingvisitors/callers

screening/filtering

callers, identifyingpotential security

problem, managing

the reception area.

* Receiving/passing

on messages,handling

incoming/placing

telephone calls

* Performing other

clerical andsecretarial tasks,

* Keyboarding, fastand accurate

typing, deciphering

poor handwriting,proofreading,

following

instruction. Wordprocessing, English

language skills.

* Telephoning

skills, good

communicationoral and written

skills, knowledge

of people, human

relations,managing desk

diary, telephone

technique, pleasantvoice, English

grammar ,

introductory

knowledge ofinternet, telephone

technique andetiquette.

* Knowledge ofbusiness and office

procedures, good

businesscommunication

*Enjoy working with machinesand people.

repared to undertake routine,

epetitive work with high

oncentration.

*Logical and having eye for

details, happy to work alone,

systematic, well organized,conscientious, cooperative,

easygoing

*Interest in people, pleasant

personality, attentive to details,

discreet, tactful, alert, patience,

helpful, able to work underpressure, well organized, having

desire to learn, enthusiasm,

prepared to undertake furthertraining, flexibility, minimum

need of supervision-

*Interpersonal/customer care


20/22

20

assisting other

admin staff with theoverflow of work

* MaintainingRecords

skills.

* Filing and

records keeping,Operating business

machines

Figure 3b: JOB COMPETENCE PROFILE II: SECRETARY TO MIDDLE MANAGER

Job Title (s) Duties/Responsibilities Skills/Knowledge Qualities/ Attitudes

*Private Secretary

Secretary to,

*Personal Assistant

*Exec. Secretary

*Admin. Assistant

* Exec Assistant

*Wide ranging and

varied: office

organization, generaladministration,

Correspondence, Diary

Management.

* Organizing

Meetings, Arrangingtravels, Maintaining

Records

*Receiving and

passing on messagesto facilitate the smooth

flow ofcommunication.

*Prepare routinefinancial documents.

*handling mail,

operating a range ofoffice equipments,

*Participating in ateam to achieve

designated tasks,

following establishedwork schedule to

achieve designatedtask.

*Arranging business

*Oral and written

business

communication.

*Typewriting and

word processing,shorthand, minute

taking, proof

reading,

telephoning,

*Reception,

people/human

relations,researching,

prioritizing,delegation, foreign

language

*Knowledge ofenterprise, policies

and procedures,

team buildingOH & S policies

*Tact and charm, loyal,

discretion, flexibility,

adaptability, initiative,assertive, able to accept

constructive criticism, able to

anticipate needs.

* Good memory, having a

sense of humor, good to look

at, interest in people.


21/22

21

trips/relevant itinerary,

arranging meetingsand organizing events

to achieve

departmental objective

Figure 3c: JOB COMPETENCE PROFILE III : SECRETARY TO TOP MANAGER

Job Titles Duties/Responsibilities Skills/Knowledge Qualities/Attitudes

*Corp. Secretary

*Office Services

Supervisor

*Office

Administrator

*Administrative

Officer

*Office Manager

*Business Manager

*Coordinating/ monitoring, andevaluating the work undertaken

by a section or division.

*Specific elements of the dutiesof an Office Manager, planning,

budgeting, directing and

controlling overall organizationof the office and staff

*Assessing requirements,allocating resources, devising

system and procedures.

*Selecting equipment,

delegating duties. Identifyingtraining needs, plan, deliver and

review training for teammembers, handling staff issues,

solving problems, ensuring good

working environment, liaisingwith management.

*Providing information

regarding the product andservices of enterprise to meet

client needs,

*Monitoring daily financial

records, process payroll, prepare

for fin reports.Monitor stock level to assure

adequate supplies, negotiatewith team members to allocate

and complete tasks to achievegoals

*Good

communicationskills.

* People/staffmanagement,

leadership,

administration,problem solving,

decision making.

* Team building,time

management,

negotiating,

advisory,reporting.

*Technical skills

(as appropriate)

* Supervision,setting and

maintaining

standards

*Professionalism,

integrity, confidence,capability, responsive to

change, and

approachable.

* Commanding respect,

firm but fair, inspiringconfidence, authoritative,

observant.

* Corporate vision andmission oriented, goal

and objective driven,

total quality committed.


22/22

22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brumfit, C.J. (ed) 1984. General English Syllabus Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Carver, D. 1983. Some Propositions About ESP ESP Journal, Vol. 2, No.1, 131-137

Finocchiaro, M. and Brumfit, C.1983. The Functional-Notional Approach, From theory to

Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hutchinson, T. and Waters, Allan. 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A learner-Contered

Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K and Morrow, K. 1981. Communication in the Classroom, Application and

Methods for a Communicative Approach. Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane, From Unity to Diversity: Twenty Years of Language-Teaching

Methodology. English Teaching Forum, October 1987,4-5.

Mackay, R. and Mountford. 1979. English for Specific Purpose: A Case Study

Approach. London: Longman.

Munby, J. 1978 Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge University of Cambridge

Newmark, L. and Reibel, D.A. 1970. Necessity and Sufficiency in Language Learning in

Lester, Mark, Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar, New York Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Robimson, P. 1983. ESP, Communicative Language Teaching and the Future,

Comments by John Roberts, in Johnson, Keith (ed), Perspectives in Communicative

in Language Teaching. London: Academic Press.

Streven, P. 1980. Teaching English As an International Language. From Practice to

Principle. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Salim P. and Toren G. 1983. The Functions of the Secretary, Secretarial Functions,

Jakarta: Modern English Press.

Van Ek, J. A. 1987. The Threshold Level in Jack Richards J.C. (eds).Methodology in

TESOL New York Harper and Row Publishers Inc.Widdowson, H.G. 1978 Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Wilkins D.A. 1981 Notional Syllabuses Revisited Applied Linguistics, Volume II,

Number 1, Spring, 1980

115. the syllabus design of english for secretary

Documents