UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA SISTEMA DE ESTUDIOS DE POSGRADO THE INFLUENCE OF PRE-TASK INSTRUCTION ON TARGET LEXICAL ITEM USE IN AN ONLINE ESP COURSE FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS Trabajo final de investigación aplicada sometido a la consideración de la Comisión del Programa de Estudios de Posgrado en Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera para optar al grado y título de Maestría Profesional en Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera CARLOS GONZALÉZ ALVARADO FANNY MAROTO SOLÓRZANO KELSEY PETERSON Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, Costa Rica 2021 ii Dedicatoria I dedicate this work to my parents Iris Alvarado and Carlos González, who have always believed in me and whose unconditional support has inspired me to go beyond my limits. My mom, in particular, is the reason why I majored in English in the first place. You’ve been the greatest example of perseverance, determination, and hard work. Finally, this dedication also goes to my life partner Alison, who stood by me through many nights. Your loving and encouraging words became a lighthouse in the storm. Carlos I would like to dedicate this graduation project to my mom, Maria Eugenia Solórzano, who has been by my side throughout this journey. For all her unconditional support, patience, love, and example that have guided me to become who I am now. Fanny I dedicate this paper to my grandmother, Bonnie Anderson. The year before I moved to Costa Rica, she told me that she wished she would have been able to attend university. Grandma, thank you for your love, jokes, and relentless competition at cards. You remind me that I can push myself to new heights. I hope that we can share in this accomplishment—after all, without you, I wouldn’t be here. Kelsey iii Agradecimientos I’d like to thank the Master’s director and admission tribunal, who decided to accept me in the program two years ago. Everything I did during these four semesters was to honor that decision. In addition, I’d like to acknowledge all the professors whose commendable work set an example for me and guided my decisions through different courses. Finally, I’d like to thank my co-researchers Kelsey and Fanny for your continuous hard work and support. Carlos González I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to my family who supported me since the very first day in the Master’s to help me achieve my dream. To my professors, who dedicated their time to teach and inspire me to become a better professional and to our practicum students, who were always so dedicated and eager to learn. Finally, I thank my co-researchers, Carlos and Kelsey, for all their efforts and hard work to make this journey possible. Fanny Maroto My thanks go out to our practicum professor, Randolph Zúñiga Coudin, for guiding us and for helping me be a better teacher and writer. Thank you to the readers for your thoughtful feedback; your work facilitated more fruitful research and critical thinking. I would like to thank Professor Sonya Kozicki-Jones, who motivated me to go further with my education and who has taught me that learning never stops. Lastly, Carlos and Fanny, thank you for this incredible experience together. Kelsey Peterson iv v Table of Contents Portada.......................................................................................................... i Dedicatoria..................................................................................................... ii Agradecimientos............................................................................................ iii Hoja de Aprobación....................................................................................... iv Tabla de Contenidos..................................................................................... v Resumen........................................................................................................ viii Abstract.......................................................................................................... ix Lista de tablas................................................................................................ x Lista de figuras.............................................................................................. xi Lista de abreviaturas..................................................................................... xii I. Chapter I: Needs Analysis........................................................................ 1 A. Description of the participants’ field of work and tasks......................... 2 B. Methodology......................................................................................... 5 a. Research Approach........................................................................ 5 b. Participants..................................................................................... 7 c. Instruments..................................................................................... 8 d. Procedures..................................................................................... 9 e. Group Profile................................................................................... 9 i. Educational Background....................................................... 9 C. Results and Discussion........................................................................ 11 a. Language Needs, Lacks, and Wants.............................................. 11 i. Specialist informants survey: Workplace needs.................... 11 ii. Stakeholders survey: Academic and professional needs..... 12 iii. Student survey: Language lacks, needs, and wants........... 15 b. Students’ Learning Strategies and Attitudes................................... 21 i. Learning styles and strategies............................................... 21 ii. Students’ attitudes towards learning..................................... 23 iii. Teachers’ desirable traits..................................................... 23 iv. Students’ weaknesses and strengths.................................. 25 v. Students’ preferences.......................................................... 28 vi. Students’ attitudes towards English..................................... 31 vii. Students’ perspectives of an ideal English course............. 33 c. Conclusions..................................................................................... 35 II. Chapter II: The Syllabus.......................................................................... 37 vi A. Course Logo......................................................................................... 37 B. Course Description............................................................................... 38 C. Goals and Objectives........................................................................... 38 a. Unit 1: Constructing Networks........................................................ 39 b. Unit 2: Building Connections........................................................... 39 c. Unit 3: Innovation and Creativity..................................................... 40 D. Methodology......................................................................................... 40 a. Approach......................................................................................... 40 b. Classroom Dynamics...................................................................... 42 c. Tasks and Techniques, and their Rationale.................................... 43 d. Roles of Learners............................................................................ 46 e. Role of the Teachers....................................................................... 47 f. Engaging Kinesthetic and Inattentive Learners............................... 49 E. Contents............................................................................................... 52 a. Unit 1: Constructing Networks........................................................ 52 b. Unit 2: Building Connections........................................................... 56 c. Unit 3: Innovation and Creativity..................................................... 60 D. Assessment.......................................................................................... 64 a. Task-based assessment and authentic assessment...................... 64 b. Informal / Formal assessment......................................................... 65 c. Formative / Summative assessment............................................... 65 i. Corrective feedback............................................................... 67 d. Assessment Distribution.................................................................. 71 E. Syllabus: Student Version.................................................................... 71 F. Lessons Plans and Materials................................................................ 75 a. Sample Lesson Plan 1 and Materials............................................. 75 b. Sample Lesson Plan 2 and Materials............................................. 91 III. Chapter III: Assessment......................................................................... 111 A. Student Performance........................................................................... 111 a. Speaking Task 1............................................................................. 111 b. Speaking Task 1: Instructor Procedure........................................... 113 c. Rubrics Speaking Task 1................................................................ 115 B. Student Teachers’ Performance........................................................... 117 a. Student Teacher Performance Evaluation...................................... 118 C. Students’ Assessment of the ESP Course........................................... 122 a. Course Assessment........................................................................ 124 vii IV. Chapter IV: Course Evaluation Report................................................. 127 A. Research Questions............................................................................. 130 B. Literature Review................................................................................. 131 a. Teaching an ESP Course............................................................... 131 b. TBLT and ESP................................................................................ 135 c. TBLT and Online Learning.............................................................. 138 d. Addressing Pre-Tasks in TBLT....................................................... 142 e. Addressing Lexicon in TBLT........................................................... 146 C. Method................................................................................................. 150 a. Context............................................................................................ 152 b. Participants..................................................................................... 152 c. Instruments...................................................................................... 154 i. Class Recordings.................................................................. 154 ii. Self-Assessment................................................................... 155 iii. Focus Group........................................................................ 157 d. Procedures...................................................................................... 158 D. Results and Discussion........................................................................ 159 a. Recorded Lessons.......................................................................... 159 i. Unit 2..................................................................................... 161 ii. Unit 3.................................................................................... 165 b. Self-Assessments........................................................................... 170 i. Instrument 1: Lessons 6 – 9.................................................. 170 ii. Instrument 2.1: Lesson 10.................................................... 173 iii. Instrument 2.2: Lessons 11 and 12..................................... 174 c. Focus Group.................................................................................... 180 E. Limitations............................................................................................ 183 F. Conclusion............................................................................................ 185 G. Recommendations............................................................................... 186 H. References........................................................................................... 188 I. Appendices............................................................................................ 198 viii Resumen A medida que más profesionales requieren experiencias de aprendizaje más especializadas de un idioma, los cursos de inglés para fines específicos (ESP) se han tornado más relevantes. En Costa Rica, el idioma inglés ha sido un pilar fundamental para su desarrollo económico, y la creciente necesidad por currículos más específicos ha sido abordada por la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR) en el Posgrado en la Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera. Esta investigación dirigió sus esfuerzos a analizar las necesidades de estudiantes de ingeniería eléctrica e ingeniería mecánica, así como conocer el rol de tareas previas en función de tareas principales, esto en un curso en línea con fines específicos (ESP) . Esta investigación se encuentra dividida en cuatro secciones. En el primer capítulo, se presenta un detallado análisis de necesidades incluyendo carencias, pretensiones e insuficiencias comunicativas reportadas por la población meta. En el segundo capítulo, se detalla un programa de estudios basado en el enfoque de enseñanza por tareas. En el capítulo tres, se brinda una descripción de los procedimientos e instrumentos de evaluación. Finalmente, en el capítulo cuatro, las investigadoras e investigador se refieren al reporte de evaluación del curso, en el cual se establecen relaciones entre tareas previas y el desempeño de estudiantes en tareas principales, basados en el uso de vocabulario meta y la percepción de los estudiantes. Los resultados de esta investigación no son definitivos, pero ofrecen implicaciones importantes que podrían ser útiles para futuros estudios en las áreas de inglés para fines específicos, enfoque de enseñanza por tareas, y el aprendizaje en entornos virtuales. Palabras clave: Inglés para fines Específicos, enfoque de enseñanza por tareas, aprendizaje en entornos virtuales, rol de tareas previas, vocabulario meta, diseño de programa ix Abstract As professionals demand more specialized language learning experiences, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses have become more relevant. In Costa Rica, the English language has been a cornerstone for economic development, and the growing need for more specific curriculums has been addressed by the University of Costa Rica (UCR) in the Master’s Program in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. This study aimed at analyzing the needs of electrical and mechanical engineering students from UCR and investigated the role of pre-tasks in main task performance in an online ESP course for those individuals. This paper is divided into four sections. In the first chapter, a thorough needs analysis is presented, including the needs, wants, and lacks reported by the target ESP population. In the second chapter, a syllabus following the Task Based Language Teaching approach (TBLT) is described. In chapter three, a description of the assessment procedures and instruments is provided. Finally, in the fourth chapter, the researchers refer to the course evaluation report, in which connections between pre-task stages and main task performance are established based on target lexical item use and the students’ perceptions. The findings in this study are not conclusive but offer important implications that could be useful for future research in ESP, TBLT, and online learning. Key words: English for Specific Purposes, Task-Based Language Teaching, online learning, role of pre-tasks, Target Lexical Items, syllabus design x Lista de tablas Table 1: Percentage of respondents rating skills as challenging...................... 15 Table 2: Percentage of respondents indicating frequency of reading five text types................................................................................................................. 17 Table 3: Percentage of participants indicating writing task frequency of five text types.......................................................................................................... 18 Table 4: Assigned value to each learning style based on students’ responses 23 Table 5: Ranking of students’ reported strengths............................................. 26 Table 6: Ranking of students’ reported weaknesses........................................ 26 Table 7: Students’ rationale for rating prior English classes as positive experiences....................................................................................................... 32 Table 8: Students’ rationale for negative experiences in prior English classes............................................................................................................. 33 Table 9: Ranking of students’ hopes for an ideal English course..................... 35 Table 10: Summary: Course assessments, assessment time, and weight in percentage........................................................................................................ 71 Table 11.1: Ratio of pre-task target language used by students in main tasks: Unit 2...................................................................................................... 163 Table 11.2: TLI and TLI-S / Unit 2 – Overall Results........................................ 164 Table 12.1: Ratio of pre-task language used by students in main tasks: Unit 3........................................................................................................................ 167 Table 12.2: TLI and TLI-S / Unit 3 – Overall Results........................................ 169 Table 13: Degree of main task completion indicated by respondents for four main tasks......................................................................................................... 171 Table 14: Reported main task achievement: Lessons 11 and 12..................... 174 xi Lista de Figuras Figure 1: Work fields that students would like to work in in the future............. 10 Figure 2: Ranking of most valued teacher traits among engineering students........................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.1: Students’ grouping preferences.................................................... 30 Figure 3.2: Students’ preferred materials........................................................ 30 Figure 3.3: Students’ preferences for class activities...................................... 30 xii Lista de abreviaturas ACTFL: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages EE: Electrical engineering students EFL: English as a Foreign Language ESP: English for Specific Purposes ME: Mechanical engineering students TBLT: Task-Based Language Teaching TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language TLI: Target lexical items TLI-S: Target lexical items used by students UCR: University of Costa Rica 1 Chapter I: Needs Analysis The Master’s in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) is a graduate program of the University of Costa Rica (UCR) that intends to shape its students into teachers of the highest level, capable of carrying out their duties independently or interdependently in a critical, creative, and ethical way. In order to successfully graduate from the program, students must design an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course aimed at helping a specific professional or academic population improve their English skills in their field. If the course design is satisfactorily completed, the students teach their previously-designed course as part of a 14-week teaching practicum. The following paper constitutes the culmination of the course design and practicum process for three graduate students of the Master’s in TEFL at the University of Costa Rica, who received the population of mechanical and electrical engineering students from the same public university. The paper consists of four distinct yet interconnected chapters. To begin, the needs analysis process, including the data procedures, approach, and key findings, is explained in this chapter. From the information gathered throughout the needs analysis, unit goals and objectives were developed, and an overview of contents for each of the three general objectives was created. These aspects are found in Chapter 2. Using the goals and objectives as a guide, lesson plan samples and sample materials were designed, found in Chapter 3, along with three assessments for evaluating student performance, student-teacher performance, and course effectiveness. The effectiveness of the course was then evaluated formally, guided by one main 2 research question and two sub-research questions to evaluate the role of pre-tasks on main task performance based on target lexical item use and students’ perspectives. This evaluation of course effectiveness is found in Chapter 4. This online ESP course for electrical and mechanical engineering students was created to aid the students in their current academic studies and future workplace settings by providing them with the tools, skills, and knowledge they need to flourish. In brief, it is the hope of the researcher-instructors that the work completed has benefitted the populations surveyed and that the findings gathered will contribute positively to future teachers and researchers. Description of the Participants’ Field Work and Tasks The world of engineering is surrounded by innovation and creativity. Since the beginning of life, humans have adapted to their environment by creating tools, either to solve issues or improve ways of living. These creative solutions led to the development of what we know today as engineering. According to the National Academy of Engineering (2020), this discipline “emerged during the 1500’s when specialists began using mathematics to design military fortifications.” In time, different branches of engineering emerged as engineers started dividing their procedures and processes into various fields. Today, an engineer’s focus is to “develop understanding of technological matters and a well-grounded sense of social responsibility” (Sheppard, Pellegrino, and Olds, 2008, p.231). In addition, they are considered the best equipped professionals to “struggle with the complexity of consequences of technological interventions in our own reality” (p. 3 231). This view is maintained among students who consider engineers to be technicians and laborers in charge of “fixing, building, or making and using vehicles, engines, and tools” (Capobianco et al., 2011, p.304). In addition to designing, creating, assessing, and fixing, both mechanical and electrical engineers must communicate effectively in English (Evans et al., 2020). First, they need to communicate clearly with companies and manufacturers in order to negotiate contracts, obtain supplies, and facilitate purchases (Rezaee & Kazempourian, 2017, p. 13). These interactions often require understanding emails and responding politely with an appropriate level of formality. Engineers may also communicate via phone or virtual media; in that case, listening and speaking skills are of the utmost importance. Whichever the medium, engineers must ask for and give clarification to avoid misunderstanding, use honorifics to show respect, structure an email or phone call effectively, and describe the advantages of a product, among other microskills. Engineers also need English for training workshops or international conferences (Rezaee & Kazempourian, 2017, p. 13; Rus, 2019, p. 323). As an audience member, an engineer needs to identify main and supporting ideas and ask questions politely. As a presenter, they must employ signposting, refer to graphs and charts, and utilize a variety of verb tenses and aspects. Lastly, the engineer may want to establish connections with other attendants, in which case small talk skills are of great importance. English proves especially necessary when engineers must produce and/or translate technical reports, manuals, and research articles (Rezaee & 4 Kazempourian, 2017). These documents provide the media through which engineers communicate with companies/supervisors, the general public, and experts, respectively. Consequently, engineers need to appropriately apply technical vocabulary in English and utilize specific writing skills (such as employing connectors, eliminating wordiness, and organizing their writing clearly) in order to communicate effectively in written form with their various audiences. In the Costa Rican context, professional opportunities in the fields of Mechanical and Electrical engineering seem to be growing exponentially. In the former, aerospace and medical design industries have shown increasing demand for engineers in recent years (Fundación Omar Dengo, 2013, 2:50). In the latter, areas such as environmental conservation, security, communication, and medicine applications have shown rising interest (School of Electrical Engineering, UCR). All these developing opportunities call for an expanding job market that, due to globalization, requires strong communication skills in English. Considering the complexity of the fields, the design of an ESP course must contemplate a series of linguistic and subject-related variables that influence the acquisition of specific and tailored communicative competences. Thus, the design and implementation of a needs analysis becomes of great relevance to design an ESP course that complies with demands of target population: Electrical and Mechanical engineering students from a public university in Costa Rica. To this end, this study aims at collecting and interpreting key data from the participants, stakeholders, and specialists to determine the most crucial communicative needs in both academic and work- related contexts. 5 Methodology Research Approach Collecting data for a future ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course that accounts for a large target population, such as the one in this study, generally demands both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The need to design a comprehensive needs analysis that comprises both quantitative data, which helps create a scenario of priorities--and qualitative data, which aids in deeply understanding the learners’ background--is most likely undeniable. Therefore, the best option for the research design seemed to be a mixed-methods study, defined by Creswell et al. (2003) as “the collection or analysis of both quantitative and/or qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of research” (p. 165). This should allow the course designers to integrate necessary features of qualitative and quantitative research. On this respect, Riazi and Candli (2014) describe sequentially designed studies as those in which “either quantitative or qualitative data are collected first, followed by the collection of the other type of data at a later second stage, with the two seen as mutually dependent,” while concurrent designs are defined as those involving “collecting both quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and independently” (p.146). To suit the contextual conditions of the needs analysis, namely the most urgent linguistic skills in engineering students, a mixed methods approach involving sequential and concurrent designs was adopted. 6 As part of this mixed methods study, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously in three different instruments containing a variety of questions for stakeholders (see Appendix A), informants (see Appendix B), and students (see Appendix D). These instruments included multiple choice, ranking, short-answer, and open-ended questions, which provided valuable information that that was then interpreted and triangulated using analysis techniques of the mixed- methods approach. Triangulation, a key feature of the mixed methods approach, contributes greatly to the validation of the data analysis as it “strengthens and enriches a study’s conclusions, making them more acceptable to advocates of both qualitative and quantitative methods” (Pardede, 2018, p. 233). The needs analysis instruments were concurrently designed in a way that one source would allow the course designers to confirm, discard, expand or clarify information from the other. Yet, the most relevant data coded and analyzed from these questionnaires also could serve the purpose of nourishing a future instrument, namely, interviews that could take place with students and stakeholders. Thus, this design also proves to be sequential, as primary results from initial instruments could become the basis for the creation of a subsequent instrument. The main goal of this needs analysis is to gather the most comprehensive data from the target population and interpret it accurately in order to design the most effective tailor-made ESP course considering learners' needs, wants, and lacks. To achieve this, sound evidence is a must. Following the rationale behind the mixed methods approach principles, the design of this needs analysis took 7 shape by creating instruments to address three target populations that would inform each other. Participants With the purpose of gathering information for this project, a total of 215 applicants were contacted. Out of the original 215 applicants, 117 responded to the survey corresponding to Appendix D. This survey was designed with the objective of obtaining their contact information and confirming their interest in the course. In addition, participants were asked to provide information regarding informants that would like to cooperate on the project. After that, a second survey was created (see Appendix D) to obtain the specific information for the needs analysis. In this case, 122 participants agreed to provide information in terms of their interests within the major, language skills, and learning needs and wants. Based on the responses from the participants on the study in terms of permanence on the program, the general age range is from 17 to 26 years old. In addition, out of 122 students, 69 of them reported having attended English classes before and 15 communicated that they are currently working as engineers. Due to the large number of applicants interested in the course, the 25 students that are on the third year of the program will be selected to participate on the course. In addition, two specialist informants were consulted. The first is a former graduate of the University of Costa Rica in the major of mechanical engineering. He works designing innovative medical devices for patients who need procedures related to endoscopies, urology, and cardiac interventions. The second specialist 8 informant is also a graduate from this institution as an electrical engineer. He founded his own company seven years ago. This company specializes in energy saving systems for institutions such as hospitals, correctional facilities, and others. As a final step, stakeholders from the schools of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering were asked to provide relevant information about their students’ current needs. Five respondents, including college professors and directors, provided valuable data concerning engineering students’ language needs both in the academic and work field. Participants added insights on the types and frequency of English exposure in spoken and written form. Instruments For the purpose of this study, two questionnaires were applied to participants. The first questionnaire (see Appendix C) gathered data regarding contact information. In this instrument, close-ended questions were added to learn about their majors and their willingness to receive further information related to the course. The second questionnaire (see Appendix D) is composed of 3 segments. The first segment requests further contact information and professional interests in terms of the areas of expertise they would like to specialize on. The second segment focuses on language, the difficulty level of various skills, and the frequency in which English is used in their major. The third segment gathered information regarding their learning styles, classroom preferences, and attitudes towards English learning. 9 Moreover, a third questionnaire was also implemented for specialist informants (see Appendix B). The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data related to the specific English needs that engineering students may encounter during their career. Aspects such as the hiring process, written texts, communication skills, and professional development were included in this instrument. Finally, an instrument for stakeholders was also designed (see Appendix A). This instrument focused on the academic and work needs learners have based on the professional experience from the stakeholders in the use of the English language. Procedures The main communication channel used to gather information was via email. In addition, all questionnaires, including stakeholders and informants, were shared using Google Forms. These questionnaires were estimated to last no longer than 15 minutes each. Group Profile Educational Background The information obtained was gathered from a group of 122 students from the University of Costa Rica (UCR). 94 students are part of the electrical engineering population and 29 are mechanical engineering students. The great majority of students (25) have studied engineering for the past three years. Other participants have been in the major for two years (21), four years (22), five years 10 (19), six years (6), and seven years (4). In addition, one student has been part of this field for 8 years and another one for twelve. Based on the responses given, 15 students out of the total of 122 are currently working as engineers. Their main roles are project coordination, energy efficiency, development of tests to measure product effectiveness, and electric design. Moreover, these students are in charge of planning different workshops for the employees, servicing clients, and establishing the budget for different projects. Additionally, students were asked the work field they would like to be part of in the future. As illustrated in Figure 1, the areas in which students are more interested in are renewable energies (65), automatic control (50), and telecommunication services and networks (43). Moreover, students mentioned other fields that were not proposed in the initial survey. Some of them are neuroscience, aeronautics, biomedicine, and computer hardware. Figure 1 Work fields that students would like to work in in the future 11 Results & Discussion Language Needs, Lacks, and Wants Specialist informants survey: Workplace needs Two informants were contacted to evaluate the possible professional needs of the student (please see Appendix B for further information). Within their area of expertise, one as a mechanical engineer and the other as an electrical engineer, both informants agreed that English is present from the very beginning of the selection process, at least in their corresponding companies. The curriculum vitae, the application form, and different tests are requested in English. In addition, the job interviews on both companies are conducted in English to evaluate not only the applicants´ qualifications to perform the job but also their proficiency and their communicative capabilities in the language. In terms of writing needs, workers use emails as one of their principal channels of communication. Even if these emails are delivered locally, English is used since most of the time non-native Spanish speakers are included in the communication. These emails are written with the purpose of informing the rest of the team of the decisions made and the actions that need to be completed in the near future to successfully conclude the assigned projects. Hence, knowing that most of the technological equipment is produced by US American companies, their sales and the technical support communication via email is provided in this language. In addition, writing skills are also needed for the creation of materials for project proposals. 12 Reading skills are applied in the informants’ everyday job-related tasks since technical protocols, operation manuals, and technical reports of their machinery are written in English. Out of those, the most frequently used are manuals and protocol reports. With respect to speaking and listening competence, informants declared that delivering oral presentations is one of their main tasks. Most of the times, these presentations are carried out in virtual settings such as videoconferences since engineers are meant to provide project updates, debate the results obtained, and analyze data. Moreover, engineers deliver educational workshops to train employees from the different departments in relation to the characteristics of the projects. For their professional growth, both informants attend conferences and seminars to receive research updates and to build professional network. As part of the seminars, engineers design small projects and complete tasks in order to evaluate their performance. Additionally, they constantly read new research to keep themselves updated on new procedures and technologies to evaluate processes and work on continuous improvement projects. Stakeholders survey: Academic and Professional Needs In terms of academic needs, all five stakeholders indicated that communicating orally with experts is a high-priority skill for engineering students. Three additional skills were identified as high priority by 80% of stakeholders: understanding talks/lectures, reading manuals, and understanding academic articles. Project presentations, academic report writing, and email writing were not 13 indicated by any of the stakeholders as high-priority academic skills, and only one respondent indicated giving proposal presentations as high priority for the academic setting. When asked to indicate high-priority skills for the workplace, 100% of respondents chose communicating orally with experts. Effectively, all five respondents indicated this skill as high priority for both the academic and professional setting. This finding prompts more than one question. First, what did stakeholders understand this oral communication to entail: small talk at a conference, polite indirect questions at a talk, phone interviews to gather data for research? Then, who are these experts: engineering colleagues, published engineers, university professors? Further investigation, perhaps in the form of follow-up interviews or consultations with other engineers and/or relevant literature, needs to be done to obtain this information. Another high-priority professional skill, indicated by 80% of stakeholders, was reading manuals. This finding is consistent with what specialist informants reported: manuals are one of the most frequently-read text types in their workplaces. The majority of stakeholders (80%) also indicated proposal presentations as a high-priority skill, while only 40% indicated project presentations. This distinction is important to consider, as the type of presentation (project vs. proposal) may affect the content, purpose, and linguistic aspects an instructor chooses to teach. With respect to email writing, 60% of stakeholders declared it a high-priority skill and specified that this communication would occur mostly between engineers, supervisors, and clients. This finding supports 14 specialist informants’ identification of email as a key channel of communication. Lastly, 60% of stakeholders also selected understanding talks/lectures as a high- priority skill for engineering professionals. One stakeholder specified in an open- ended question that attending conferences, seminars, and workshops would be important for the population; this supports specialist informants, who stated that workshops and seminars are common events they attend where English is used. Concerning the use of English in the hiring process, all five respondents indicated that English is indeed necessary for job interviews, consistent with data from the specialist informants. Three stakeholders indicated that English is also used for cover letters, job applications, and resumes. It seems that while job interviews are likely to be conducted in English, other English requirements (a language test, resume, cover letter, job application) might vary on a company-to- company basis. For this point, a larger sample size of stakeholders could likely yield more generalizable conclusions. Overall, the present results from the stakeholder and specialist informant surveys highlight the following workplace needs for engineers: reading manuals, communicating orally with experts, presenting proposals, writing emails, and understanding talks/lectures. The data from both groups of respondents also indicate that at least part of the hiring process is likely to be implemented in English. In terms of academic needs, four were emphasized by stakeholders: communicating orally with experts, reading manuals, understanding academic articles, and understanding talks/lectures. In order to triangulate these findings, the 15 professional and academic needs reported here will be discussed further in combination with the student survey results. Student survey: Language lacks, needs, and wants Students rated 14 engineering-related language skills on a scale from one (least difficult) to four (most difficult), an item designed to gather students’ perceptions of challenging tasks in English. For the purposes of this analysis, the most challenging skills will be understood as those for which at least 70% of students indicated either a 3 or 4 for level of difficulty. Table 1 summarizes the most challenging skills according to the survey. Table 1 Percentage of respondents rating skills as challenging Skill Respondents Giving oral presentations in a work setting 86% Maintaining a formal conversation about my field 79.5% Giving oral presentations in an academic setting 77.8% Writing an academic article 77% Using engineering vocabulary 74.6% Writing a technical report 71% Orally summarizing an idea of an engineering expert 70.5% As shown by the data, of the 14 skills listed, giving presentations and maintaining formal conversations are the most difficult for the majority of the group. This is a crucial piece of information given the data gathered from specialist informants and 16 stakeholders: giving presentations is a key task in the workplace, and communicating orally with experts is a high-priority skill in both academic and professional settings. Additionally, if students intend to participate in seminars, workshops, or conferences (three events that both specialist informants attend), formal conversations about engineering will likely occur. These conversations might be part of what stakeholders identified as communicating orally with experts, though as mentioned previously, more research is needed. In terms of specific indications as to which aspects of presentations and formal conversations students find challenging, one could argue that students indicated using engineering vocabulary and orally summarizing an idea as highly challenging, which are two components of oral presentations and may also be skills required for formal conversations about the field. However, further investigation must be done in order to ascertain specific details. When students were asked which three skills (of the 14) they would like an English course to focus on, 52.5% mentioned giving oral presentations, and 51.6% indicated maintaining a formal conversation about engineering. More than a third of respondents also indicated using engineering vocabulary (35.2%), and roughly a quarter chose writing a technical report (25.4%). Three of these four skills match the most challenging tasks that students indicated in the language section of the survey, among them, giving oral presentations, maintaining a formal conversation, and using engineering vocabulary. To determine task frequency, students indicated how frequently they read five typical engineering text types in English in their engineering courses: manuals, 17 technical reports, emails, academic articles, and abstracts. Table 2 illustrates the frequency with which the student sample reads these five text types over the course of their engineering program. Table 2 Percentage of respondents indicating frequency of reading five text types Text type Frequency Never Infrequently Frequently Almost always Manuals 8.2% 35.2% 43.44% 13.1% Technical reports 13.1% 30.3% 45% 11.5% Emails 30.3% 45.9% 18.9% 4.9% Academic articles 4% 27.9% 50% 18% Abstracts 5.6% 17.2% 54% 23% As the data show, the most frequently-read document is abstracts: 77% of respondents indicated that they read them almost always (23%) or frequently (54%). Half of respondents replied that they frequently read academic articles, and nearly half indicated that they frequently read technical reports and manuals. Emails are the least frequently read of the five texts; 76.2% of respondents reported that they never (30.3%) or infrequently (45.9%) read them in English in their courses. While many of the students read at least four of the text types in the survey in English, they rarely, or never, write them. Table 3 shows the frequency with 18 which respondents write five text types in English over the course of their engineering program. Table 3 Percentage of participants indicating writing task frequency of five text types Text type Frequency Never Infrequently Frequently Almost always Manuals 59% 33.6% 6.6% 0.8% Technical reports 51.6% 38.5% 6.6% 3.2% Emails 55.7% 35.2% 8.1% 0.8% Academic articles 51.6% 38.5% 7.3% 2.4% Abstracts 45% 36.9% 13.1% 4.9% At the low end of the frequency spectrum, 92.6% of students indicated that they never or infrequently write manuals in English in their engineering courses (59% and 33.6% respectively). 90.1% of respondents indicated never or infrequently writing technical reports (51.6% and 38.5% respectively). 90.9% of respondents indicated never or infrequently writing emails (55.7% and 45.2% respectively). Lastly, 81.9% of students indicated never (45%) or infrequently (36.9%) writing abstracts. According to these findings, writing skills for the five text types included in the survey are not an academic need for the students in this population. Given the results from the specialist informant and stakeholder questionnaires, in addition to the results on reading frequency, the students are more likely to read the text types from this survey than to write them. The only exception is email writing. Specialist informants signaled that emails are a key 19 channel of communication, a statement supported by 60% of stakeholders. Although email writing is infrequent in the academic setting, it is a frequent and high-priority task in the workplace. With respect to reading skills, students have not interacted with the five text types in the same way that they will need to in their future workplaces. Even though roughly half of the population reported reading manuals and/or technical reports in classes, the purposes for reading those text types in courses could vary greatly from the reasons for reading them in the professional setting. In brief, the data on task frequency, when analyzed in light of the findings from the specialist informant and stakeholder surveys, reflect a need for reading skills, specifically for manuals, technical reports, and academic articles, as well as a need for reading and writing emails. On another note, the results obtained on task frequency seem to contradict the results on skill difficulty in the case of writing manuals and emails. Neither email writing nor manual writing were identified as one of the most challenging skills from question six, yet, according to their responses, students almost never produce these two text types in English in their engineering courses. One could posit that students did not rate these skills as challenging due to a lack of experience performing the skills. In essence, perhaps they did not find these tasks to be difficult because they have never done them before. In addition to the data on text types, students indicated the frequency with which they carry out selected oral and auditory activities in English in their engineering courses. A relatively high frequency was indicated for watching videos related to the mechanical or electrical branch of engineering (74% of respondents). 20 The lowest frequency was reported for two activities: following an engineering class taught in English, by 89% of respondents, and giving presentations about topics related to the engineering major, by 84%. Perhaps the most salient piece of data here is the last; the importance of giving presentations in the professional setting was emphasized by specialist informants and stakeholders, but a very high percentage of students report not having to do presentations in their courses. Furthermore, slightly more than half of the student population indicated that they would like to learn how to give presentations in English, and 86% of the students identified giving presentations in the workplace as a high-difficulty skill. Although giving presentations may not be an academic need, the results stated previously support that giving presentations in the workplace is a need, want, and possibly lack for this population. When asked about their preference regarding a course focused on current vs. delayed needs, the majority of students (68.8%) indicated that they prefer a course focused on both. More than a fourth (27.9%) expressed interest in focusing solely on professional needs, while almost no students (3.3%) preferred a course focused only on academic needs. Data from specialist informants and stakeholders support the design of an ESP engineering course focused both on immediate and delayed needs. More specifically, the data from the three populations (specialist informants, stakeholders, and students) suggest the following target-needs to satisfy through the ESP course: reading and writing emails, giving presentations (specifically presenting proposals), maintaining formal 21 conversations about engineering topics, reading manuals, and understanding talks/lectures. Of the 122 students, 43 responded to an optional question regarding topic(s) from their major that they would like integrated into the English course. The topics students referred to would be understood as possible sources of carrier content, not real content; that is to say, the focus during the course would be on the language involved in the engineering material, not the teaching of the material in and of itself. The following topics were the most frequently mentioned among the 43 respondents: design (23.3%): electrical, mechanical, computational; circuits/circuit analysis (16.3%); systems (14%): systems analysis, systems control, air conditioning systems, sewage systems, embedded systems; electronics (14%). At first glance, these data seem to provide indications of possible carrier content for the course. However, these responses were supplied by a minority of the population (roughly a third), and the percentages thus diminish greatly when calculated for the total 122 respondents. In the end, when choosing engineering topics and materials for the course, more information must be considered, especially given that a salient topic for electrical engineering could be highly irrelevant for mechanical engineering, and vice versa. In the event that carrier content is not relevant to both areas, separate carrier content should be used; in these cases, the real content in both sets of materials will be the same. Students’ Learning Strategies and Attitudes Learning styles and strategies 22 In order to determine students’ learning styles, a number of scenarios were carefully designed and described in the form of questions. For each scenario, participants were allowed to choose freely from four possible alternatives that represented the four learning styles proposed by the VARK model (Fleming & Baume, 2006): visual, auditory, reading and writing, and kinesthetic. Selecting more than one option was acceptable. The alternatives were provided randomly to prevent students from fixating on one particular style or finding a pattern to follow in the questionnaire. Furthermore, considering that learners were able to choose more than one option, an additional step was necessary to analyze and interpret the data. A value of 4 was assigned to each learning-style alternative with the highest choice rate. The same procedure was followed with the second, third, and fourth highest choice rate was followed by assigning values of 3, 2 and 1. Eventually, the number values assigned to each learning style based on the results were added to obtain a score representing the most influential learning styles in this population. Table 4 Assigned value to each learning style based on students’ responses Learning Style Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Total Kinesthetic V:3 V:3 V:4 V:3 V:4 V: 17 Auditory V:4 V:2 V:3 V:4 V:3 V: 16 Writing/Reading V:2 V:4 V:2 V:2 V:2 V: 12 Visual V:1 V:1 V:1 V:1 V:1 V: 5 Q = Question V = Value 23 The results in the learning styles section of the questionnaire were undisputable. The participants demonstrated a strong tendency in favor of auditory and kinesthetic learning styles. The addition of the values given by learners resulted in 17 points (85%) for the kinesthetic learning style, 16 points (80%) for auditory, 12 (60%) points for reading/writing, and 5 points (25%) for visual. These percentages indicate the degree of probability for the target population to opt for alternatives typical of the VARK learning styles model. Thus, the engineering students who participated in the questionnaire have a tendency to choose kinesthetic and visual learning style strategies as their first and second options when performing a variety of tasks. When interpreting these results, an important caveat must be born in mind. The fact that both reading/writing and visual learning styles reported lesser values does not mean that students do not resort to these strategies. The point to be made here is that these are not their primary options when performing engineering-related tasks. Students’ attitudes towards learning As part of this segment of the needs analysis, participants were asked to answer questions that provided input on their expectations of teacher’s desirable traits, classroom preferences, and past experiences while learning English. In addition, they were asked to describe their weaknesses and strengths as students. The results are described below in each of the corresponding categories. Teachers’ Desirable Traits Data was collected from the questionnaire regarding students’ perception of desired qualities in a teacher. Considering the qualitative nature of the information, 24 the responses were coded into seven main categories: knowledge, patience, passion, creativity, responsibility, and communication skills. Knowledge, in particular, was subdivided into instructional-related aptitude and language-related aptitude to differentiate comments that related to a teacher’s ability to come up with effective classroom practices from those that implied an instructor’s knowledge of the language. The interpretation of these results should be read carefully considering that most responses provided input for more than one category. Thus, participants often mentioned a variety of traits that, in their opinion, were desirable in a teacher. To analyze such data quantitatively, the number of times that each category was mentioned was added in order to determine its importance. Figure 2 summarizes these results. Figure 2 Ranking of most valued teacher traits among engineering students Unquestionably, knowledge was the most valued trait considered by the target population. Out of 122 replies, 59 (47.9%) indicated a noteworthy preference toward teachers being knowledgeable. As mentioned before, knowledge was 25 separated into two additional categories that classified comments related to the teacher’s expertise in terms of pedagogic aptitude or linguistic knowledge. Out of 59 knowledge-related responses, 53 replies concerned the instructor's pedagogic knowledge to deal with a variety of scenarios. Among the most frequent comments, participants emphasized the teacher’s talent to catch and maintain the students’ attention, the competence to offer meaningful explanations, and the qualification to answer all types of questions when necessary. The other seven responses addressed the teacher’s knowledge of the language. In addition to knowledge, participants showed great appreciation for a teacher who is patient (31.7 %), caring (21.9 %), and passionate (13.8 %). Participants explicitly used the adjective, patient, or noun, patience, a significant number of times. In the following category, they did not use the word caring explicitly, but all of the comments that referred to a teacher’s genuine empathy, tolerance and respect were grouped in this category. Finally, some participants specifically alluded to the instructor’s passion for their work, while others described the teachers’ vocation and love for their practice. These features were included into the “passionate” category. Students’ Weaknesses and Strengths In terms of learning strengths, the data collected was qualitatively classified into five dominant categories: a) perseverance, b) cognitive ability, c) responsibility, d) study skills, and e) learning enthusiasm. It must be clarified that, out of the 122 replies, five responses were discarded because they were either left blank or provided irrelevant information. The most recurrent strengths in the target 26 population were perseverance (34.1%) and cognitive ability (33.1%). Perseverance included all of those responses that described the learner’s determination, hard work, and resilience when facing adversity, while cognitive ability was subdivided into two further categories: learner’s rate (b1) and memory capacity (b2). The former was interpreted as the learner’s ability to learn fast. The latter was understood as the student’s retention capability. Out of the two, learner rate had the highest recurrence (29 out of 39 cognitive-related responses). Other important strengths were study skills (18%), which incorporated replies implying the student’s effective use of study strategies, including organization, teamwork and creativity, responsibility (17%), which explored the comments that showed the learner’s degree of commitment, and learning enthusiasm (8%), which dealt with students’ answers that denoted an intrinsic excitement or enjoyment in learning. The results are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Ranking of students’ reported strengths Categories Results Perseverance 40 / 117 (34.1%) Cognitive Ability Total: 39 / 117 (33.3%) Learning Rate: 29 / 39 Memory Capacity: 10 / 39 Responsibility 20 / 117 (17%) Study skills 22 / 117 (18.8%) Learning Enthusiasm 10 / 117 (8%) 27 Concerning the participants’ weaknesses, the responses were coded into five predominant categories: i) inattentiveness, ii) procrastination, iii) cognitive limitations, iv) shyness, and v) time management. The most relevant weakness reported, inattentiveness, encompassed all statements that denoted the learner’s lack of focus and limited attention span. Although with a significant difference from the first category, time management and cognitive limitations were the second and third most relevant weaknesses. The former depicted responses describing the learners’ difficulties to organize their time to cope with their responsibilities. The latter comprises statements alluding to various degrees of cognitive processing, including poor memory capacity, lack of understanding in ordinary learning scenarios, and need for additional pedagogical help. Other weaknesses reported by the target population concerned procrastination, assumed as the strong tendency learners have to delay academic obligations, and shyness (5.1%), understood as the difficulty to interact with peers or the instructor as well as to speak in public. Table 6 illustrates the previous results. Table 6 Ranking of students’ reported weaknesses Categories Results Inattentiveness 45 / 117 (38.4%) Time Management 12 / 117 (10.2%) 28 Cognitive Limitations 11 / 117 (9.4%) Procrastination 7 / 117 (5.9%) Shyness 6 / 117 (5.1%) Students’ Preferences To determine the participants’ expectations of classroom interaction, three main components were addressed: (1) grouping strategies, (2) class activities, and (3) didactic materials. For the first component, students were asked to choose the most effective grouping strategy for learning purposes; the vast majority (62/122) opted for the alternative that incorporated all types of classroom practice: individual, pair, and group work. The rest of the group favored pair work (28/122) and individual work (21/122) in similar percentages, leaving only group work (11/122) as the least preferred option (See Figure 3.1). The second component dealt with in-class activities that learners considered to be the most motivational, with the possibility of choosing more than one option. The results showed a dominant tendency towards problem-resolution (78/122) activities, followed very closely by text analysis (71/122), and discussions related to innovation (69/122). Other activities that also showed a significant preference were oral presentations (65/122), writing tasks (62/122), online research (49/122) and demonstrations (44/122) (see Figure 3.2). 29 Finally, regarding teaching materials, learners were asked to rank five types of materials based on their perception of how important they were to increase learning opportunities. A strong inclination for practice and exercises (63/122) far exceeded the remaining four types of materials. Both illustrated material and videos showed the exact same relevance for students (38/122) while short readings (30/122) and podcasts (25/122), although meaningful to a significant part of the population, did not prove to be essential to the majority (see Figure 3.3). All of these results correlate closely with the data from the learning styles segment. A likely explanation is that Engineering students are, for the most part, kinesthetic and auditory learners with a marked flexibility for teamwork and fond of the practicality and analysis of problem-resolution activities. In addition, the participants show a remarkable preference for exercises as their number one option to increase learning opportunities, which can be linked with the kinesthetic learning style. Yet, the few responses in favor of podcasts in contrast with higher numbers for videos and illustrated materials differ from the low numbers for the visual learning style. Such a discrepancy could be explained in terms of the scarce use of podcasts in classrooms compared to the much more traditional audiovisual materials. 30 Figure 3.1 Students’ grouping preferences Figure No.3.2 Students’ preferred materials Figure 3.3 Students’ preferences for class activities 31 Students’ Attitudes towards English To determine attitudes towards English learning, participants responded to questions about their prior participation in English courses. Of 122 students, 69 (56.5%) reported having attended English classes before. It must be clarified that the participants were not entirely consistent reporting their past participation in an English course. Some reported no participation but still rated their experience. Thus, it has been concluded that, based on their ratings, they had attended English classes before. Therefore, the participation rate should be 88% instead of 56.5%. When referring to their experiences, the results were fairly even with a small tendency in favor of positive episodes. Learners who reported a negative experience rated their English classes as frustrating (16.3%) or tedious (21.1%), while those with pleasant experiences described their classes as either interesting (26.8%) or motivating (22%). When asked about the rationale behind their responses, learners reported a number of reasons. When reading these results, however, it should be born in mind that several responses (42) to this question were discarded because of ambiguity or irrelevance. Thus, the following statistics contemplate only 80 responses instead of 122. Responses that conveyed positive experiences (43/80) were coded into four categories: a) effective learning, b) intrinsic motivation, c) learning beyond the classroom, and d) teacher-related factors. Effective learning (12/43) included comments that touched on students’ sense of learning something effectively, however small. Intrinsic motivation (11/43) dealt with answers in which learners express their personal preference for the language or intrinsic willingness to enjoy 32 it. Learning beyond the classroom (9/43) enclosed responses in which the participants explained how their English lessons went beyond reviewing forms and theory; instead, they learned about cultures and other themes. Finally, teacher- related factors (6/43) were concerned with those reactions that made instructors accountable for a positive experience, either because they were engaging, committed, creative, or inspirational. These results suggest that for the target population, a sense of accomplishment is crucial to keeping themselves motivated. Table 7 summarizes the students’ explanations of their positive attitude towards learning English. Table 7 Students’ rationale for rating prior English classes as positive experiences Categories Positive Experiences: 43 / 80 Effective learning 12 /43 (27.9 %) Intrinsic Motivation 11 / 43 (25.5 %) Learning beyond the classroom 9 / 43 (20.9 %) Teacher-related factors 6 / 43 (13.9%) Responses that revealed negative experiences were coded into four categories: 1) teacher-related factors, 2) content-related aspects, 3) affective variables, and 4) theory fixation. Teacher-related factors included all those 33 reactions in which participants made instructors accountable for their negative learning experiences because they were monotonous, insensitive, or indifferent to the students’ needs. Content-related aspects accounted for those comments in which learners expressed inappropriateness of the syllabus because it was either to basic or too challenging for their current proficiency. Affective variables comprised learners’ reports of both anxiousness and fear of mockery by peers or teachers themselves. Finally, theory fixation alluded to learners’ complaints about their classes being overly focused on theory or written practice. All of these results shed some light on the crucial role of the teacher and the suitability of the syllabus. Table 8 illustrates these findings. Table 8 Students’ rationale for negative experiences in prior English classes Categories Negative Experiences 37 / 80 Teacher-related factors 17 / 37 (45.9%) Content-related aspects 7 / 37 (18.9%) Affective variables 6 / 37 (16.2%) Theory fixation 5 / 37 (13.51%) Students’ perspective of an ideal English course At the end of the questionnaire, participants were allowed to speak (write) their mind on all those aspects they wish in an ideal English course. Of 122 responses, 10 were discarded due to irrelevance and ambiguity while 110 provided 34 a myriad of expectations. These responses were coded into five categories: 1) speaking interaction, 2) balance, 3) safe environment, 4) customization, and 5) English-mastery (see Table 9). Speaking interaction (57/110) accounted for the learners’ hopes for an interactive class in which there is full and continuous spoken communication in a variety of activities and tasks. Balance (23/110) encompassed comments that reflected the learners’ expectations of a learning environment that integrated homogeneous linguistic skills while keeping an equilibrium between theory and practice. The concept of safe environment (14/110) was understood as the participants’ wishes for a classroom atmosphere in which they wouldn’t feel intimidated or threatened neither by the instructor nor their peers when participating. Customization (11/110) dealt with the learners’ aspirations for a tailor-made course in terms of population size, proficiency, and thematic contents. Finally, English-dominance constituted those statements that denoted the students’ want of an English-only speaking policy during their lessons. These findings reflect the crucial role of spoken interaction in the target language for the students as well as their need for an encouraging environment that motivates them to participate. The results correlate with data from students’ prior experiences in terms of what constituted negative and positive encounters, namely highly interactive and engaging lessons versus monotonous and discouraging class experiences. 35 Table 9 Ranking of students’ hopes for an ideal English course Categories Results Speaking Interaction 57 / 110 (51.8%) Balance 23 / 110 (20.9%) Safe Environment 14 / 110 (12.7%) Customization 11 / 110 (10%) English-dominance 10 / 110 (9 %) Conclusions With respect to the students’ target language needs, the results gathered from the three populations (specialist informants, stakeholders, and students) indicate the following salient needs: reading manuals; communicating via email with clients, supervisors, and team members; giving presentations, particularly proposal presentations; maintaining formal conversations about engineering topics; understanding talks/lectures; and attending engineering-related conferences, seminars, and workshops. Concerning wants, nearly 70% of students indicated that they would like the course to focus on both their needs as engineering students and their future needs as engineering professionals. Additionally, slightly more than 50% of the students indicated a desire to focus on two particular skills during the course: giving oral presentations and maintaining a 36 formal conversation about engineering. Finally, the lacks for this population from the students’ perspectives appear to include the following: writing academic articles, giving oral presentations, orally summarizing an idea of an engineering expert, writing a technical report, and using engineering vocabulary. In terms of learning styles and strategies, the results from the students’ questionnaire indicate that most students are both kinesthetic (80%) and auditory (85%) learners. Also, most participants reported perseverance and cognitive ability as their greatest strengths as students, while inattentiveness and time management were identified as their weaknesses. Learners also referred to classroom preferences by revealing flexibility to work in groups or pairs and showing predilection for class exercises, illustrated materials, problem-resolution activities, innovation-related discussions and oral reports. Regarding their past learning experiences, students reported effective learning results (27.9%) and intrinsic motivation (25.5%) as the main factors influencing a positive experience in previous English classes. Additionally, they said that teacher-related factors were the most serious issues when they had negative incidents Finally, participants suggested that an ideal English course would entail speaking interaction, a theory- practice balance, a safe environment to participate, customization of content, and a fully English-dominant environment. 37 Chapter II: Syllabus Course Logo The course logo incorporates different items that serve as a representation for the target population of this course. The gear represents the mechanical engineers who spend their professional lives innovating, designing, and analyzing machines and tools that have an important role in our current society. The circuit connections illustrate the links that electrical engineers create, simplifying our lives and bringing people and companies together. Finally, both representations are combined as one to show the connection professionals of these fields have and all the hard work they do to bring innovation to our world. The course is called “Assembling Communication” since our mission as ESP instructors is to assemble and bring our pedagogical contribution into the lessons to provide learners with the appropriate language tools to perform their tasks and communicate not only in their academic but also in their professional field. Course Description 38 The course “Assembling Communication” is an educational resource for future engineers from the University of Costa Rica who want to improve their English proficiency in a variety of skills in their academic and professional environment. These lessons were designed and will be taught by three students of the practicum of the Master’s Program in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. The course will be divided into 14 sessions scheduled every Monday from 5pm to 6:50pm The team's mission is to help students to develop their English proficiency with creative and engaging activities that will promote critical thinking and innovation. The selected features are meant to provide students with the necessary tools and useful expressions to respond to their needs in terms of competence to effectively communicate in their field. This includes field-specific vocabulary, grammatical structures, and soft skills. To this end, students will be exposed to authentic materials such as user guides, security protocols, podcasts, conferences, and others to prepare them for a real-life context. Moreover, the strategies necessary to effectively comprehend written texts such as skimming and scanning will be presented throughout the units, methods that will be helpful when analyzing manuals and protocols. Overall, the activities cover a large sample of various learning styles and techniques aiming to create a safe environment for the students who will be improving their skills through these units. Goals and Objectives Unit 1: Constructing Networks 39 Goal: By the end of the unit, students will be able to interact professionally with engineers and engineering experts at conferences, seminars, and workshops by using appropriate vocabulary, structures, and register. General Objectives: By the end of the lesson, students will be able to 1. Successfully maintain a formal conversation about a new technology with other engineers at a webinar by using appropriate conversation starters, exchanging opinions about the technologies, and expressing agreement or disagreement. 2. Appropriately establish professional connections with other engineers at a conference by asking about and sharing engineering interests, mentioning career goals, and exchanging contact information. 3. Properly interview an engineering expert by expressing appreciation and formulating clear, well-focused questions about the expert’s research. Unit 2: Building Connections Goal: By the end of the unit, students will be able to determine the quality and suitability of materials and components for specific projects by identifying their properties, describing their advantages and disadvantages, and requesting further information about their specific features. General Objectives: By the end of the lesson, students will be able to: 1. Successfully describe characteristics of specific types of materials/components used for projects or products by giving a short presentation. 40 2. Accurately explain advantages and disadvantages of using different materials and components to ensure the good quality of product by giving an oral report. 3. Politely request information via email about materials or components in order to determine cost and safety issues by using appropriate language and formulating clear, concise questions. Unit 3: Innovation and Creativity Goal: By the end of the unit, students will be able to discuss, describe, explain, and suggest innovative proposals for engineering projects with little to no effort by summarizing main ideas of texts orally. General Objectives: By the end of the lesson, students will be able to: 1. Successfully interpret tables, figures and data from research reports such as manuals, protocols, and articles related to innovative projects by using the appropriate language and vocabulary. 2. Accurately identify main ideas in real life scenarios such as TED Talks by identifying meaning from context. 3. Propose innovative products to clients and coworkers by using the appropriate vocabulary, language, organization, and persuasive skills. Methodology Approach In light of the specific linguistic and learning needs of the target population described in this report, a task-based language teaching approach (TBLT) seems 41 to offer the best opportunities to achieve the goals and objectives for the ESP course. To describe a TBLT approach, a definition of what a task implies must be attempted first. An early definition was provided by Breen (1987, as cited in Willis & Willis, 2007), who describes it as “a range of work-plans which have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning – from the brief and simple exercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision making” (p.12). Breen’s concept sheds some light on the kind of activities that are part of a TBLT lesson. Based on this definition, course designers may opt from a number of class activities that involve making a decision, simulating a real-life scenario, or discussing possible solutions for a specific problem. On a different perspective, Nunan (2004) made a distinction between a task and a pedagogical task. As language teachers, the concept of a pedagogical task is of high relevance, which Nunan defines as A piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form (p.4) Thus, a pedagogical task encourages learners to manipulate the target forms without focusing on meaning. In an ESP context, learners are guided to use target language spontaneously, while focus on form becomes complementary at the end of the task cycle. Nunan (2004) also emphasizes that a task, as a communicative act in itself, must convey a “sense of completeness.” Thus, the 42 focus of a TBLT lesson centers around procedural knowledge (meaning) rather than declarative knowledge. Skehan (1998) agrees with Nunan that meaning and completion are paramount to define a task, but he also highlights the need for real- world comparability and outcome-oriented assessment. Cordoba and Navas (2009) contribute to the discussion by adding a definition of task within the ESP context. The authors argue that an ESP task “should reflect what learners need to do in real-life situations at the workplace” (p. 2) while also “be based on authentic materials obtained from written or oral texts which have not been adapted”. (p. 2). A synthesis of these assumptions renders a definition of TBLT as an educational framework which facilitates language learning through work-plans and pedagogical tasks, which center around an ESP task that is meaning-focused, outcome- oriented, comparable to real-world scenarios, and based on authentic materials. These components agree with the target population’s reported needs, which could be best addressed by incorporating meaningful task-like interactions that reflect their immediate needs as college students and their delayed needs as working engineers. A TBLT approach offers engineering students increasing opportunities to interact with authentic material of their interest in tasks that are designed to reflect their everyday needs in terms of both written and oral communication. The outcome-oriented nature and the sense of completion in TBLT also agree with the reported learning and affective factors previously explained in the needs analysis, which revealed a strong need for a sense of achievement in students in order to stay motivated. Classroom Dynamics 43 For each lesson, instructors will adopt a team-teaching strategy for each lesson of the ESP course. While one of the instructors takes the role of the lead teacher, the other two will take a variety of roles as assistant teachers. Lead teacher and assistant teachers will meet beforehand to coordinate the dynamics for the approaching lesson. Assistant teachers will cooperate with the lead teacher by sending materials at established times and monitoring students’ progress during different stages of the class. Considering the importance of pair and group work as “central to task-based teaching” (Ellis, 2009, p.14), learners will spend a reasonable amount of time working and interacting with peers. These activities and tasks require a constant attention from the instructor, which can be addressed with a team-teaching strategy. Assistant teachers will make themselves available to students to answer their questions, clarify instructions, and offer any additional aid that is requested. Finally, teacher assistants will adopt the key role of supporting the lead teacher by modeling the use of procedural and task language. For example, new vocabulary will be introduced and the lead teacher will rely on the two assistant instructors to model the use of the language in order to facilitate understanding. The target population is large, and time is limited; therefore, a team-teaching strategy can offer plenty of advantages to both teachers and students. Tasks and Techniques, and their Rationale In TBLT, a lesson is divided into three main stages: pre-tasks, main task, and post-tasks. Ellis (2009) identifies pre-tasks as the activities that “prepare students to perform the task in ways that will promote acquisition” (p. 7). The 44 author distinguishes four different alternatives to design pre-tasks. The first type, performing similar tasks, refers to those activities that resemble the main task in content and form. The second type, providing a model, implies an activity that allows learners to be exposed to a model of the main task’s expected performance. Ellis suggests that this “involves presenting them with a text (oral or written) to demonstrate an 'ideal' performance of the task” (p. 8). Third, non- preparation activities require learners to participate in different interactions that help activate schema and reduce either cognitive or linguistic demands. The benefits are explained by Ellis when he affirms that When learners know what they are going to talk or write about they have more processing space available for formulating the language needed to express their ideas with the result that the quantity of the output will be enhanced and also fluency and complexity. (p.9) Finally, strategic planning is concerned with tasks or activities which involve the provision of time slots for students to prepare the main task. In contrast to previous types, Ellis clarifies that this “involves the students considering the forms they will need to execute the task work plan they have been given” (p.9). Thus, learners do not perform or are exposed to a similar task, but they can be given the linguistic features expected to be used during their performance. Tasks, the second main stage of the TBLT cycle, can take a variety of forms. Nunan (2004) recognizes three main types: information-gap, reasoning-gap, and opinion-gap tasks. The first type conveys an exchange of information among two or more participants while “generally calling for the decoding or encoding of 45 information from or into language” (p. 57). According to Nunan, information-gap activities usually involve pair work and demand correctness and completeness in the transfer of relevant information. The second type deals with an exchange of thoughts, based on input, which calls for “processes of inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a perception of relationships or patterns” (p. 57). In this way, learners are required not only to comprehend information, but also to make reasoned choices based on the text provided. Finally, the third type entails expressing preferences, feelings, and attitudes towards a particular text. Nunan warns, however, that “there is no objective procedure for demonstrating outcomes as right or wrong, and no reason to expect the same outcome from different individuals or on different occasions” (p.57). Therefore, opinion-gap tasks can be more challenging to assess. These three types can and will take a number of forms when implemented in this ESP course. Some examples would be formal and informal dialogues in conference or professional meetings, role-plays that illustrate real-life interactions among engineers, picture-based descriptions of materials or components, presentations of potential innovations, and problem-solving discussions. The third stage of the cycle brings closure to the lesson in the form of post- tasks. According to Ellis (2009), these may have three pedagogical options. One possibility involves repeating the task performance. Ellis suggests that such a task may take place under the same conditions or these may vary. The purpose seems to be reinforcing forms and meaning by allowing learners to repeat their performance. A second alternative is reflecting on the task. Ellis observes that 46 asking students to report on their performance is advisable when he states that “Encouraging students to reflect on their performance in these ways may contribute to the development of the metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring and evaluating” (p. 19). Learners may be asked to reflect about the language they use and ways to improve their skills, or to evaluate their performance. A third option is focusing on form. This is considered by Ellis as particularly necessary to avoid the potential risk of students developing fluency at the expense of accuracy during previous tasks. He explains that this can be done “by asking students to report on their performance of the task, as discussed above, but it can also be achieved by a direct focus on forms.” (p. 19). Thus, post-tasks will be of great help for students to become more actively involved in their learning process while consolidating their explicit knowledge and accuracy. Roles of Learners During the delivery of this course, learners will be expected to have an active role in the classroom. Nunan (2004) points out that ideal TBLT students should “see themselves as being in control of their own learning rather than as passive recipients of content provided by the teacher or the textbook” (p. 67). Thus, the engineering students will be encouraged to be independent learners who take risks during oral and written interaction, negotiate meaning to complete tasks, and monitor their own progress. They will also be expected to become fully aware of their learning styles so that they can use different learning strategies to the best of their abilities. Nunan (2004) suggests that “There is growing evidence that an ability to identify one’s preferred learning style, and reflect on one’s own learning 47 strategies and processes, makes one a better learner” (p. 65). The more responsibility learners take for their learning process, the more meaningful the lessons, activities, and tasks will be. TBLT theory suggests three key roles for learners: group participants, monitor, and risk taker and innovator (Hismanoglu M, & Hismanoglu S, 2011). The first role reflects learner’s interaction either in groups or pairs. Course designers will prepare activities and tasks that will require students to interact between and among each other in order to achieve a specific outcome. The second role aims at providing several opportunities for learners to be exposed to target language use in context. Thus, demonstrations of language use by the teachers will be part of every lesson in this course, and learners are expected to be listen and observe actively. Finally, the third role implies a level of determination expected in the students. Hismanoglu M. and Hismanoglu S. (2011) observe that “many tasks will push learners to generate and expound messages for which they do not have full linguistic resources and prior experience” (p. 5). Different activities and tasks throughout the course might be more challenging than students expect. Therefore, they are expected to be resourceful and take risks to accomplish the objectives established in the course. Role of the teachers In a TBLT approach, the roles of the teacher can make a substantial difference in how learning outcomes turn out. Considering the learner-centered nature of TBLT, teachers’ contributions vary significantly from traditional ESL/EFL learning (Branden, 2016). Three essential roles of the TBLT teacher are 48 distinguished and emphasized by Branden: a) materials and tasks designer, b) organizer and c) interactional partner and supporter. When designing a task cycle, an essential function of the student-teachers is to select content and determine the focus of each lesson. Branden (2016) highlights, as the first tole of TBLT instructors, that teachers “decide (at least partly) which tasks and exercises the student will be exposed to, which text material will be covered, and which input the teacher will offer in their classroom” (p. 167). Such decisions are made based on the needs and lacks previously reported by this target population. Additionally, teachers will make decisions about the amount of time devoted to each of the stages of the task cycle, and to what extent additional hours are assigned to a learning objective if performance expectations are not met. The second role of TBLT teachers is as organizers, which is of particular importance for a team- teaching strategy. Branden indicates that, as organizers, teachers must “make sure that the sequence of activities the learners engage in is logical, coherent, and is built up in such a way that learners are continuously exposed to challenges that remain doable” (p. 169). In this sense, having two assistant-teachers can be of great help to the lead student-teacher to make sure that materials are delivered efficiently, activities and tasks are achievable during pair or group work, and instructions are clear. Finally, the teacher role of interactional partner and supporter is key to this target population. Based on their needs’ analysis, the engineering students expect to find a safe and encouraging environment where they can interact freely. Branden recommends that teachers should “create a safe climate in which students do not feel overly anxious or inhibited to speak out and 49 practice their productive skills, should treat all learners with respect, keep students motivated, give them positive feedback to enhance their well-being and self- confidence, and encourage them to persist even if the task is difficult” (p. 171). Teachers can fulfill this role by engaging in negotiation of meaning, asking questions to elicit output, providing feedback, and modeling the use of target language (Branden, 2016). To this end, teachers will interact actively and purposefully with students in individual, pair, or group work by guiding discussions, eliciting responses, offering suggestions, and demonstrating the use of target language. In this segment, three main roles for the ESP teacher, based on the TBLT approach, have been described: materials and tasks designer, organizer, and interactional partner and supporter. Instructors are responsible for providing all necessary conditions to maximize learning opportunities. By making decisions about the contents to be studied and practiced, learners are given an outline of their learning outcomes. By structuring class activities, teachers guide students towards their goals step by step. By giving support and eliciting interaction, course participants are inspired to overcome linguistic and affective obstacles that may emerge during their learning process. Overall, teachers’ accountability is constantly reflected through every cycle of the ESP lesson. Engaging Kinesthetic and Inattentive Learners An additional challenge to the execution of this course is working with reportedly kinesthetic and inattentive learners in a virtual environment. Even though the literature that addresses learning styles in an online setting is limited 50 (Pinchot & Paullet, 2014), some suggestions offered by different authors are applicable and adaptable to this context. Zapalska & Brozik (2006) observed the importance of acknowledging these learning styles when they observed that “Instructors who know about differences in learning styles are better able to modify their teaching strategies and techniques in online education” (p. 326). Thus, making anticipated decisions based on the target population’s characteristics gives course designers the upper hand to tailor activities and materials in a way that benefits learners as much as possible. Also, it is fundamental to mention that the learners are not exclusively kinesthetic. The results of the needs analysis indicate that they are strong auditory learners as well. However, Pinchot and Paullet (2014) argue that although learners may have overlapping learning styles “most people will have a dominant style falling into either the visual, auditory, or kinesthetic categories” (p. 30). Therefore, some strategies to deal with dominant and overlapping learning styles are considered for the implementation of this course. Zapalska and Brozik (2006) suggest that teachers should provide content in multiple formats. They recommend using PowerPoint as well as audio-streaming. Pinchot and Paullet (2014) warn instructors not to rely entirely on PowerPoint as it may become monotonous for learners; hence, they suggest using other tools such as Prezi. In relation to technology tools, an important caveat is indicated by Junk et al. (2007) when they point out that “course developers must balance the need to service learners on slow connections against the opportunity to enrich the course material with items requiring considerable bandwidth” (p. 4) In this case, a series of digital tools such as Padlet, liveworksheets, learningapps, and Google Classroom 51 will be used in order to provide students with a variety of resources while also receiving input in different formats and allowing fluency in slow-connection settings. Additionally, Zapalska and Brozik advise encouraging collaborative interaction. Considering the online environment, they suggest that activities be both individual and group-based so that learners “solve problems, analyze cases, and develop group deliverables” which “allow individual ideas, perspectives, and experiences to be heard and collectively considered” (p. 330). Considering this and the digital platform Zoom, which is also recommended by Pinchot and Paullet, course designers will enable different opportunities for students to interact in breakout rooms (groupwork) and individually in addition to reporting in the main session. Finally, coping with learners who report inattentiveness and a short-memory span ca