Khó khăn giáo sinh gặp phảI trong việc xây dựng khung chương trình tiếng anh chuyên ngành

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

CHALLENGES FACED BY STUDENT TEACHERS
OF FELTE, ULIS, VNU
IN DESIGNING AN ESP COURSE SYLLABUS

Supervisor: Cấn Thị Chang Duyên, M.A.
Student: Giang Thanh Trà
Course: QH2015.F1.E1

HÀ NỘI – 2019


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

KHÓ KHĂN GIÁO SINH GẶP PHẢI
TRONG VIỆC XÂY DỰNG KHUNG CHƯƠNG TRÌNH
TIẾNG ANH CHUYÊN NGÀNH

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Cấn Thị Chang Duyên, M.A.
Sinh viên: Giang Thanh Trà
Khóa: QH2015.F1.E1

HÀ NỘI – 2019


Signature of Approval:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Supervisor’s Comments & Suggestions
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Date:


ACCEPTANCE PAGE
I hereby state that I: Giang Thanh Trà, QH2015.F1.E1, being a candidate for the degree
of Bachelor of Arts – English Teacher Education program accept the requirements of
the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited
in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library
should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the
normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the
paper.

Signature

Giang Thanh Trà

Date: 06/06/2019

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Throughout the whole time, I owed the accomplishment of my graduation paper to
incredible individuals.
First and foremost, I would like to express the heartfelt gratitude to my amazing
supervisor Can Thi Chang Duyen for the wholehearted support that I received during
the development of my bachelor thesis. Without her divine guidance, detailed comment,
constructive advice, and considerable encouragement, I would never have completed
this study.
My deepest appreciation also goes to my family and friends for their substantial
assistance and constant care. Thank you so much for showing remarkable tolerance and
patience towards me, especially during the time I carry out this paper.
Finally, it is vitally important to send my sincere thanks to all ESP lecturers and student
teachers who agreed to participate in the study. Not only do they constitute an
indispensable role as to providing profound insights into the problem under
investigation, but they also offer worthy criticisms to improve the research.

ii


ABSTRACT
Given the explosive growth of globalization, technology advancement, and
international job opportunities, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has gained a vital
place in the language teaching world. Despite its popularity, little research has been
conducted to perceive the status quo of ESP teachers and their difficulties in a new
working environment, and even less for pre-service teachers. With such inadequate
understanding of pre-service teachers’ situation in ESP practice, especially in Vietnam
context, this study is carried out to shed light on the challenges that student teachers of
University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS) encounter while designing

an ESP syllabus as a project of their ESP Methodology course. From the perspectives
of approximately one hundred student teachers and four ESP lecturers, the research also
takes into account the root of the problems, and suggests possible solutions to overcome
these challenges. Questionnaires, semi-interviews, and document analysis are employed
to achieve the aim. The results revealed that student teachers were more likely to
confront with intrinsic challenges such as dealing with pedagogical knowledge or
keeping motivation for the project, and the main cause of these difficulties lay behind
the lack of experience in ESP teaching. As suggested by both groups of participants,
consultation with the instructor and self-study might assist student teachers to cope
better in those situations. Apart from major findings, several recommendations for the
projects, ESP Methodology course, and English Teacher Education program were also
given.

iii


ABBREVIATIONS

EAP:

English for Academic Purposes

EBE:

English for Business and Economics

ELT:

English Language Teaching

EOP:

English for Occupational Purposes

ESE:

English for Social Science

ESP:

English for Specific Purposes

EST:

English for Science and Technology

FELTE: Faculty of English Language Teacher Education
GE:

General English

PBL:

Project-based Learning

ULIS:

University of Languages and International Studies

VNU:

Vietnam National University, Hanoi

iv


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.3.1. Number of student teachers of FELTE, ULIS .......................................... 25
Table 4.1.2.1. Challenges student teachers encountered in syllabus design process ... 35
Table 4.1.3.1. Causes of the challenges encountered by student teachers ................... 40
Table 4.1.4.1. Solutions to challenges encountered by student teachers...................... 46

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1.1. ELT Tree (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987, p. 17) ...................................... 8
Figure 2.6.1. Framework of the study .......................................................................... 22
Figure 5.2.1. Major challenges student teachers encountered in the project ............... 59

LIST OF PIE CHARTS
Pie Chart 4.1.1.1. Student teachers’ experience with ESP ........................................... 32
Pie Chart 4.1.1.2. Assumed class size .......................................................................... 32
Pie Chart 4.1.1.3. Target students’ level ...................................................................... 33
Pie Chart 4.1.1.4. Target students’ majors ................................................................... 33

LIST OF BAR GRAPH
Bar Graph 4.1.2.1. Challenges as perceived by student and lecturer interviewees ...... 38

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ............................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF PIE CHARTS .......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF BAR GRAPH ........................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENT.......................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 1

1.2.

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM ......................................................... 2

1.3.

RESEARCH AIMS & RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................... 3

1.4.

SCOPE OF RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 3

1.5.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 4

1.6.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 6
2.1.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE (ESP) ....................................................... 6

2.1.1.

Definition of ESP ................................................................................................ 6

2.1.2.

Categories of ESP ............................................................................................... 7

2.1.3.

Differences between ESP and GE ..................................................................... 8

2.2.

ESP SYLLABUS DESIGN ..................................................................................... 10

2.2.1.

Definition of ESP syllabus ............................................................................... 10

vi


2.2.2.

Definition of ESP syllabus design ................................................................... 11

2.2.3.

Components of ESP syllabus........................................................................... 12

2.3.

SYLLABUS DESIGN AS A PROJECT IN ESP METHODOLOGY COURSE
……………………………………………………………………………………...13

2.3.1.

Definition of project-based learning............................................................... 13

2.3.2.

The overview of the implementation of PBL in teacher education ............. 14

2.4.

CHALLENGES IN ESP TEACHING .................................................................. 15

2.4.1.

Challenges faced by teachers in teaching ESP .............................................. 15

2.4.2.

Challenges faced by teachers in designing an ESP course ........................... 17

2.5.

CHALLENGES OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN ESP................................ 18

2.5.1.

Challenges faced by pre-service teachers in ESP practice ........................... 18

2.5.2.

Challenges of pre-service teachers in course design as a project ................ 19

2.6.

2.5.2.1.

Challenges of pre-service teachers in PBL ................................................. 19

2.5.2.2.

Challenges of pre-service teachers in course design as a project ............... 20

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY......................................................................... 21

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................... 23
3.1.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ................................................................... 23

3.2.

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY................................................................................. 24

3.2.1.

Description of the ESP Methodology Course ................................................ 24

3.2.2.

Description of the Project ................................................................................ 24

3.3.

PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................................... 24

3.3.1.

Student teachers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU....................................................... 25

3.3.2.

ESP lecturers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU ............................................................ 26

3.4.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ................................................................. 26

3.5.

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................... 27

3.5.1.

Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 27

vii


3.5.2.

Interview ........................................................................................................... 28

3.5.3.

Document .......................................................................................................... 29

3.6.

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ........................................................................ 29

3.6.1.

Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 29

3.6.2.

Interview ........................................................................................................... 29

3.6.3.

Document .......................................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION......................................................... 31
4.1.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................. 31

4.1.1.

4.1.1.3.

Target students’ level.................................................................................. 33

4.1.1.4.

Target students’ majors .............................................................................. 33

4.1.2.

Challenges encountered by student teachers Analysis ................................. 34

4.1.2.1.

Student teachers’ Questionnaire Analysis .................................................. 34

4.1.2.2.

Student teachers’ Interview and Document Analysis ................................. 35

4.1.2.3.

ESP Lecturers’ Interview Analysis ............................................................. 37

4.1.3.

Causes of Challenges Analysis ........................................................................ 39

4.1.3.1.

Student teachers’ Questionnaire Analysis .................................................. 39

4.1.3.2.

Student teachers’ Interview and Document Analysis ................................. 42

4.1.3.3.

Lecturers’ Interview Analysis .................................................................... 44

4.1.4.

4.2.

Teaching Situation Analysis ............................................................................ 31

Solutions and Recommendation to Challenges Analysis .............................. 45

4.1.4.1.

Student teachers’ Questionnaire Analysis .................................................. 45

4.1.4.2.

Student teachers’ Interview and Document Analysis ................................. 47

4.1.4.3.

Lecturers’ Interview Analysis .................................................................... 48

DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 50

4.2.1.

Main challenges encountered by student teachers in syllabus design ......... 50

4.2.2.

Causes of the challenges .................................................................................. 51

viii


4.2.2.1.

Main cause as perceived by student teachers and ESP lecturers ................ 51

4.2.2.2.

Other causes of the challenges.................................................................... 52

4.2.3.

Solutions to the challenges............................................................................... 54

4.2.3.1.

Feasible approaches as perceived by student teachers and ESP lecturers .. 54

4.2.3.2.

Other solutions to the challenges ................................................................ 55

4.2.4.

Recommendations for Project and ESP Methodology Course .................... 55

4.2.4.1.

Recommendations by student teachers ....................................................... 55

4.2.4.2.

Recommendations by ESP lecturers ........................................................... 56

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 57
5.1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 57

5.2.

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ......................................................................... 57

5.3.

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 60

5.3.1.

Recommendations for student teachers ......................................................... 60

5.3.2.

Recommendations for ESP lecturers ............................................................. 60

5.3.3.

Recommendations for ESP Methodology course designers ......................... 61

5.4.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 61

5.5.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................. 62

ix


CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

With the increasing popularity as an international language in over 100 countries
like China, Germany or Russia, English has played a critical role in different aspects
such as economy, politics, and cultures (Crystal, 2012, p.5). It generates a new
generation of international workforce that regards the language as a “common medium
of communication” and “an access to much scientific and technical literature” (Kennedy
et al., 1984). In that sense, the demand for learning English has increased rapidly. Being
aware of this, Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training have carried out National
Foreign Language Project with the substantial investment in order to adapt English into
all schooling levels since 2008.
Learning English is not only restricted to learning the language itself, but it is
also taught in business or other fields, which is often referred to English for Specific
Purposes (ESP). According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), ESP – as a branch of
English Language Teaching (ELT) – is an approach to language teaching and learning
based on learners’ needs. In Dudley-Evans and St. John’s words (1998), ESP serves the
specific purposes of learners. Since the first emergence in 1960s, it has fast “become
fashionable in the language-teaching world” (Haddam Bouabdallah, 2015, p.18). With
the growing number of global workers whose jobs command English of specific fields,
courses for ESP have been paid more attention in universities where educators expect

to train a qualified and dynamic workforce (Do & Cai, 2011). However, such attention
deems meager in comparison to ELT teaching. This may be due to a challenging nature
of ESP courses or the lack of sufficient trainings for ESP teachers who shifted from
ELT background (Pham & Ta, 2016).
Concerning the latter reason, Hutchinson et al. (1987) remark that it was a
difficult task for General English (GE) teachers to change to ESP teaching in their
professional career, “Teachers who have been trained for General English teaching or
for the teaching of Literature may suddenly find themselves having to teach with texts
that they know little or nothing about” (p.160). The same idea was confirmed by

1


Strevens (1988) who describes what GE teachers experience is a shock, and it is possible
that they are quite unprepared to deal with requirements of the new situations.
In the same line of thought, research works have been carried out to understand
this issue better. According to Koran (2014), challenges are likely to happen in the
stages of designing an ESP course like needs analysis, syllabus design, material
adaptation, specialist knowledge, or collaboration with subject teachers. In Saliu’s
research (2013), he discovered difficulties faced by both teachers and students in ESP
teaching. Teachers struggle to master professional knowledge, adapt and evaluate
materials for syllabus design, and have little cooperation with subject teachers.
Meanwhile, students face up to language barriers and demotivation during the course.
Another study in China described challenges of ESP teachers as to fulfilling the role of
a collaborator with subject-specialist colleagues. It means they have to extend linguistic
knowledge by adding one or more disciplines from the subject student learn (Luo &
Garner, 2017).
In Vietnam, several studies have been carried out to identify problems during
teaching ESP in universities, and the findings somehow reveal similarities to the
aforementioned studies. Specifically, in Nguyen and Pham’s empirical study (2016),

they find out that difficulties of teaching ESP come from students, teachers, and other
factors. In addition to the students’ poor English proficiency, or language barriers,
teachers’ main concerns are the quality of textbooks, and inadequate theoretical
framework to support teaching. Other constraints are large class size and heavy focused
examination.
1.2.

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

Although there have been innumerable studies related to challenges faced by
teachers in teaching ESP, it seems that fewer studies depict challenges and their causes
while designing a syllabus solely, and even fewer for cases of pre-service teachers. In
fact, one research that has attempted to involve the former participants is Indrasari’s
research (2016) about Project-based learning – designing an ESP course. The result
reports that they experience difficulties in each stage of the project, including syllabus
where students feel hard to identify the alignment of language focus and content focus,
or determine the topics for learners. However, the data was quite insufficient in terms

2


of the causes why such challenges happened and suggestions for solutions to tackle
them effectively.
In Vietnam, even less attention has been paid to this area since most studies
revolve around the changing roles of ELT teachers to ESP and their problems. In the
course in ESP methodology, the researcher along with other students found some
difficulties during designing syllabus. Therefore, with a view to understanding the
obstacles of student teachers in ESP syllabus design, this research is conducted with the
topic “Challenges faced by student teachers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU in designing
an ESP course syllabus”.

1.3.

RESEARCH AIMS & RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The aim of this research work is to identify (i) student teachers’ challenges while
designing an ESP syllabus; (ii) what leads to their challenges; and (iii) how to overcome
these obstacles, all from the perspectives of student teachers and ESP lecturers.
In this sense, the study purports to answer these questions:
1. What are the challenges encountered by student teachers during the process
of designing an ESP course syllabus?
2. What are the causes of these challenges as perceived by students and their
ESP lecturers?
3. What are the possible solutions to these challenges as perceived by students
and their ESP lecturers?
1.4.

SCOPE OF RESEARCH

As the description of challenges in ESP teaching and course design is a relatively
broad area, this research is only restricted to challenges during the project of ESP
syllabus design encountered by student teachers of Faculty of English Language
Teacher Education (FELTE), University of Languages and International Studies
(ULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU), Hanoi. To be more specific, these
challenges, along with their causes and solutions, are specified from the viewpoint of
student teachers in academic year 2018 – 2019 and four ESP lecturers. Although the
researcher was aware that other former students from previous years also confronted
challenges, the sample of this research was confined to one cohort only due to time
constraint and the researcher’s resources.

3

1.5.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research work is an effort to provide valuable data and viable suggestions
to address the current situation.
Firstly, this study will contribute its modest findings to the limited literature
review about pre-service teachers in dealing with ESP syllabus design as a project. In
university scale, it hopes to put forward small suggestions concerning the arrangement
among courses for English Teacher Education curriculum in ULIS.
Since this study aims to identify the challenges and their roots of problems, it
serves as a notification of the status quo for ESP lecturers about their students’ struggles
in the last semester. From that, certain implications for ESP Methodology course
designers could possibly be drawn out.
Lastly, both the researcher and other student teachers can benefit from the
outcome of this study. To be more specific, for the future learners of ESP Methodology
course, they might be aware of potential difficulties in designing ESP and why these
challenges emerge. In addition, they are provided solutions to better cope with these
obstacles, as suggested by former students and ESP lecturers. In terms of the researcher
herself and those who had undergone this project, it provides the reflection, lessons and
recommendations for further improvements.
1.6.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The present research work is divided into five chapters.
Chapter one is the introduction chapter which reveals background of the study,
statement of problem, the research aims and objectives, the scope, and significance of

this study.
Chapter two provides Literature Review; that is, an overview of what had been
written about the issue in the area of ESP. Several terms are defined, followed by a
description of challenges encountered by ESP teachers and pre – service teachers when
designing a course in a specific field. Such findings help construct the framework of the
research at the end of this chapter.
Chapter three mainly describes Methodology. It explains the mixed methods,
the sample of the research, and procedure which had been utilized to collect and analyze
data.

4


Chapter four discloses the results and discussion of major findings, and at the
same time, offers the detailed answers to stated research questions.
The last chapter – Chapter five reaches a conclusion for the whole study. It
summarizes the outcomes while reflecting on the statement from introductory chapter,
highlights the limitations, and provides direction and areas for future research.

5


CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE (ESP)

2.1.1. Definition of ESP
Since its emergence in early 1960s, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has been

a broad and ever-changing field which makes it difficult for scholars to clearly define
(Anthony, 1997). A large number of studies were carried out to present each author’s
viewpoint of the issue.
According to MacKay and Mountford (1978), ESP is regarded as the teaching of
English for “a clearly utilitarian purpose”, which means teaching and learning depends
on learner’s need for academic, occupational or scientific purpose. The view is
supported by Munby (1981) who emphasizes that learners’ needs are key element to
syllabus and materials design. He writes “ESP courses are those where the syllabus and
materials are determined in all essentials by the prior analysis of the communication
needs of the learner…” (p. 2)
Harmer (1983) states ESP definition in a slightly different way by comparing
General English (GE) students with ESP students in which he finds that ESP students
“may have a closely identified goal for learning”.
After a few years, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) brings out their definition. This
time, instead giving the direct answer, they make attempt to show what ESP is not. From
that, they draw the conclusion: “ESP must be seen as an approach not as a product.”
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p.19)
Another prominent definition comes from Dudley-Evans and John (1998), which
in fact was improved from the version of Strevens (1988). It mainly deals with absolute
and variable characteristics of ESP.
Absolute characteristics:
- Designed to meet specified needs of the learners;
- Related to content, to particular disciplines, occupations and activities;
- Centered on the language appropriate to those activities, in syntax, lexis,
discourse, semantics, etc.
Variable characteristics:
- ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines;

6

-

ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from
that of GE;
- ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level
institution or in a professional work situation. It could, however, be used for
learners at secondary school level;
- ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students. Most ESP
courses assume basic knowledge of the language system, but it can be used
with beginners.
(Dudley-Evans & John, 1998, p.4)
It can be seen that with any definition, learners’ purposes are central to ESP
teaching and learning. For this research, the particularly pertinent definition is the
statement of Hutchinson and Waters (1987), “ESP is not a particular kind of language
or methodology, it is an approach to language learning, which is based on learner need.”
(p. 19)
2.1.2. Categories of ESP
ESP is traditionally categorized into two main types in (Strevens, 1977): English
for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). This
classification is shared among researchers such as Dudley-Evans and John (1998).
-

EAP refers to teaching and learning in academic institutions to fulfill academic
purposes. EAP may constitute of teaching specific skills such as reading texts,
writing reports, taking notes and so forth. These may help prepare students at
tertiary level.

-

EOP deals with vocational purposes accomplishment, which includes several
fields like medicine, law, or bank. In other words, EOP is taught with knowledge
of language that students need to use in their work profession.
However, in the tree of ELT of Hutchinson & Waters (1987), the two authors

suggest different division where three main branches originate from ESP: English for
Science and Technology (EST), English for Business and Economics (EBE), and
English for Social Science (ESE). Hutchinson et al (1987) believe that there is hardly
any clear-cut distinction between EAP and EOP as either leaners can work and study at
the same time or the final product of studying may be used at work.

7


Figure 2.1.1. ELT Tree (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987, p. 17)
2.1.3. Differences between ESP and GE
Although ESP and GE are similar in the way that they both incorporate practical
linguistic skills to enable students to perform successfully in professional tasks
(Potocar, 2002), the distinction between ESP and GE lies in students’ need, the general
aim and the teachers.
ESP learners are usually adults with high motivation and basic background of
English language. They tend to be more active due to the awareness of their needs as to
fulfilling a particular purpose such as academic or professional (Hutchinson & Water,
1987). In contrast, GE learners often study English from the beginning and without clear
intention, so they are less oriented and more dependent on their teachers.

8


This leads to the differences in the general aim of each approach. The main goal

of ESP is to correspond to students’ need (Robinson, 1991). In other words, it prepares
students with necessary English language skills to deal better with their practical
communication situation in their future careers (Strevens, 1988). Meanwhile, GE only
offers basic knowledge and skills at school level where students’ orientations have not
formed properly (Islam, 2011). Therefore, GE mainly concerns conversational and
social topics (Hamp – Lyons, 2001).
Another factor is teachers. Not only do ESP teachers have to fulfill students’
specific need in a particular field, but they also have to spend more time on matters such
as designing course or setting goals and objectives. Teachers’ roles can be illustrated
further with Dudley Evans’ model of true ESP teachers – ESP practitioners (1998),
including five different roles – Teacher, Collaborator, Course designer and materials
provider, Researcher, and Evaluator.
With responsibility as a Teacher, ESP teachers have to perform many functions.
They may be asked to organize courses, set learning objectives, establish a positive
learning environment in the classroom, and evaluate student’s progress.
As a Collaborator, ESP teachers are required to work closely with subject
specialist. They can carry out ESP teaching scaffolding; the former provides the latter
with methodology of language teaching while the latter helps the EFL teachers learn
content knowledge.
As a Course designer and materials provider, although both ESP and GE teachers
hold responsible for course design, ESP courses are largely based on the learner’s needs.
Besides, ESP teachers have to provide students with the most suitable materials for the
course by selecting, adapting published books or developing original ones.
As a Researcher, it is ESP practitioners’ duty to constantly update the latest
research, incorporating the results into teaching. Dudley – Evans and John (1998)
clarified this view by stating before designing a course or providing materials, teachers
might research to investigate the genres of texts, language, and skills required by the
specific field of study. In the words of Basturkmen (2006), there is “a direct link
between research and pedagogy, with teaching primarily focused on demonstrating the
forms and features that descriptive linguistic research has brought to light” (p. 147).

9


As an Evaluator, ESP practitioners perform a multi – aspect evaluation which
involves assessing student’s learning progress, the courses and teaching materials.
Students must be informed of how much they have learnt from the course through
feedback (Anthony, 1997). As for courses and materials, ESP teachers should carry out
evaluation to judge their effectiveness. To be more specific, with students’ evaluation,
ESP teachers need to assess whether the learners acquire the necessary language and
skills to survive in their field. Meanwhile, they assess materials or the course to measure
the extent to which these issues fulfill the learners’ needs (Bojovic, 2006)
For GE teachers, what they focus on is a set of language areas such as grammar
or vocabulary. GE teachers only have to prepare lesson plan and evaluation, and they
are more concerned with how to transmit the knowledge to their students. Consequently,
GE teachers become the main actor or the owner of knowledge in the class (Islam,
2011).
2.2.

ESP SYLLABUS DESIGN

2.2.1. Definition of ESP syllabus
Numerous studies have proposed different approaches to define syllabus, each
of which reflects a distinct stance of the researcher.
Syllabus can be referred to the “content” of a particular subject. As stated in
White (1988), a syllabus “will be defined narrowly as the specification and ordering of
content of a course or courses” (p. 25). This view is not only advocated but also added
by Nunan’s book in 1988, mentioning that syllabus “focuses more narrowly on the
selection and grading of content” (p. 17).
Shaw (1975) approaches this issue differently based on the syllabus’ relation
with curriculum when defining syllabus as “a statement of the plan for a part of

curriculum, excluding the element of curriculum evaluation itself” (p. 62). A few years
later, Allen (1984), who also points out the connection between syllabus and
curriculum, explains further the function of a syllabus as “the subpart of a curriculum
which is concerned with the specification of what units will be taught” (p. 61).
As for Strevens (1977), he claims that syllabus acts as
…partly an administration instrument, partly a day-to-day guide to the teacher,
partly a statement of what is to be taught and how, sometimes partly a statement
of an approach… The syllabus embodies that part of the language which is to be
10


taught, broken down into items, or otherwise processed for teaching purposes (p.
29)
In Yalden’s (1994) words, a syllabus somehow is the method, “seen as an
instrument by which the teacher can achieve a degree of ‘fit’ between the needs and
aims of the learner and the activities which will take place in the classroom” (p. 14).
Another way to define syllabus is to focus solely on outcomes other than the
process. This is considered as the traditional interpretation of syllabus, and it is
remarked in Hutchinson and Waters’ research (1987): “At its simplest level, a syllabus
can be described as a statement of what is to be learnt; it reflects the language and
linguistic performance” (p. 80).
Although a syllabus might be regarded as a guide for both teacher and learner by
setting a certain set of objectives and activities, it just simply expresses “assumptions
about language, about the psychological process of learning, and about the pedagogic
and social process within classroom” (Breen, 1984, p.49). In other words, it cannot
predict accurately what will be learnt and what will be taught. As a result, teacher might
not regard it as absolute rules for determining what is to be learnt, but rather as reference
(Widdowson, 1984, p. 26).
Overall, syllabus can be described briefly as a “summary of the content to which
learners will be exposed” (Yalden, 1987, p. 87).

2.2.2. Definition of ESP syllabus design
According to Krahnke (1987), syllabus design is defined as follows:
… to decide what gets taught and in what order. For this reason, the theory of
language explicitly or implicitly underlying the method will play a major role in
determining what syllabus is adopted… Theory of learning will also play an
important part (p. 11).
With this definition, the researcher suggests syllabus design is a complex process
which invokes several principles and careful selection of content.
Munby (1981) regards syllabus design as “a matter of specifying the content that
needs to be taught and then organizing it into a teaching syllabus of appropriate learning
unit”. For Webb (1976), syllabus design is “the organization of the selected contents
into an ordered and practical sequence for teaching purposes”.
Maley (1984) emphasizes on the involvement of syllabus design in the whole
process of designing a language program. He states that
11


… the need analysis which produces an order unit of items to be taught is
organically related to a methodology consistent with the syllabus, a set of
techniques consistent with the methodology, and evaluation procedure consistent
with the whole (p. 47).
According to Agustina (2014), syllabus design can be divided into three main
stages: needs analysis, content specification, and syllabus organization. She also points
out that the formulation could be further developed into the model suggested by Taba
(1962) which includes:
-

need analysis

-

formulation of objectives

-

selection of content

-

organization of content

-

selection of learning activities

-

organization of learning activities

-

decisions about what needs evaluating and how to evaluate.

2.2.3. Components of ESP syllabus
There is no definitive set of syllabus components adopted by all, or most, higher
education researchers or practitioners, “so what actually constitutes a syllabus remains
unclear” (Doolittle & Siudzinski, 2010, p. 3). However, a considerable number of books
and articles have worked on this matter, trying to reveal the desired syllabus
components that could generate a big picture.
Davis (1993) recommends three main components, including (a) basic course

information, (b) instructor’s information, and (c) formal prerequisites for the course.
The research of Doolittle and Siudzinski in 2010 reveals four main component
categories: grading policy, instructor’s name, course content topics, and course due
dates. Although various suggestions for syllabus components are listed, Rubin (1985,
as cited in Diamond, 1989) holds the view that syllabus might lack one or more of such
components.
According to Markie (1994), course syllabi might consist of the instructors’ plan
for the course, a statement of the course’s general purpose, the instructor’s orientation
to the content, suggestions for students on how to strategically approach the course
content, and course goals.
12


For ESP syllabus, its four main components partly correspond to that of Markie
(1994). It comprises objectives, method or methodology, materials, and evaluation, and
a syllabus designer may add other relevant parts such as course policy, weekly schedule,
assignment, or course description/identity (Agustina, 2014, p. 10–11).
2.3.

SYLLABUS DESIGN AS A PROJECT IN ESP METHODOLOGY
COURSE

2.3.1. Definition of project-based learning
In the recent years, Project-based learning (PBL) has been preferably
implemented into classroom context to maximize the learning and teaching process
(Holst, 2003).
PBL is regarded as a form of cooperative learning that contextualizes learning
by presenting learners with problems to solve or products to develop (Katz, 1994). With
such complex problem, question or challenge, the projects or solutions are often
carefully planned, managed and assessed (Mergendoller et al., 2006, p. 587).

Thomas (2000) defines PBL as “a model that organizes learning around projects”
(p. 2). His review of literature on project-based learning reveals that PBL has its own
“uniqueness” which can be shown by “centrality, driving questions from students,
constructive investigation, autonomy, and realism” (p. 4). This approach allows
students to either work individually or work in groups with the support and guidance
from teachers to make a real product. Students have the chance to broaden their
knowledge by active learning and interacting with classroom environment.
PBL also refers to students’ engagement in exploring meaningful questions
through a process of investigation and collaboration. It requires students to perform a
wide range of activities – “ask questions, make predictions, design investigations,
collect and analyze data, use technology, make products, and share ideas” (Krajcik et
al., 1999).
Another way to investigate project-based learning is its relation to skill learning.
In Bell’s study (2010), the researcher mentions PBL is a critical strategy “to empower
learners with the skills - collaborative work, problem-solving and communication skills,
which they will need to prosper in the 21st century”. This view is explained further by
Robinson (2013). PBL is described as “a systematic teaching method that engages
13