I'm focusing my thinking in this course (at least for the moment) on a specific course I've taught only once and will be teaching again next semester. With relation to that, I think the most important principle (if I really had to pick just 1) is:
"Make sure that the language the learners are exposed to is authentic in the sense that it represents how the language is typically used."
In this course we're looking at English through presentations, and some of the language we look at has functions that are specific to 'presentation English': openers, closers, etc. The model presentations that are provided by the text put this language in context, and provide several alternatives. The students do not always 'get' how very different language can serve the same function, so we need to work on that.
I teach quite a lot of English for presentations and I am always torn between the need for focusing on authentic presentation language as used within the learners' discourse community vs. the language recommended by literature or perceived best practice. While analysing needs, I've never heard anyone (including highly proficient users of English) use the line "My presentation is divided into three parts" other than in a coursebook audio/video or some sort of training video. It might not reflect actual language use in business presentations but it may be a good chunk to have. A non-linguistic example is getting learners to stand and deliver presentation when most presentations at workplace are delivered sitting down around a table in a meeting or a conference call. But I often ask my learners to stand up and present possibly because it has an impact on classroom dynamics rather than being an accurate reflection of an authentic presentation.
ReplyDeleteAdi Rajan Thanks for your comments! I haven't taught much presentation English, so it's good to hear from someone more experienced. Non-linguistic first: I do the same thing, though I get them to stand in front of the class as a way to put (slightly or a moderate amount of) pressure on them. Linguistically, I have heard, and used, slightly varying versions of the 'my presentation today is in X parts'. In fact, in a presentation I gave last weekend I said (something to the effect of): "What I'm going to talk about for the next 30 minutes has two parts". It's not elegant, but when speaking to an audience of largely unknown English levels I often opt for straightforward language. For my students, this sort of straightforward language is a good fit for their levels (it's even advanced for some of them). Interesting that you've not heard it where you've been. :)
ReplyDeleteMichael Free TBH, I've only ever heard it from teachers at conferences, never from business professionals. I think they use other less explicit ways of signposting the presentation.
ReplyDeleteAdi Rajan I was just wondering the same thing, Adj. I suppose it's part of making the presentation 'slicker'. One is (ostensibly) meant to aim for clarity, and the other is meant to 'sell' the presentation or otherwise influence the people in attendance via the language use. Interesting to consider the difference!
ReplyDeleteDidn't Tim Thompson write a book wit the help of ELT works (Mike Griffin and Tim Hampson) write a book about presentations? That could be an interesting read!
ReplyDeleteRhett Burton Bought it, but haven't read it yet. I'll let you know!
ReplyDeleteMichael Free Cool. I am thinking of getting my hands on it too!
ReplyDelete