Makalah Issues in ESP Course Design

INTRODUCTION

          Course design refers to the planning and structuring of a course to achieve the needed goals. It is the outcome of number of elements: the result of the needs analysis, the course designer's approach to syllabus and methodology, and existing materials (Robinson: 1991).
In the same vein, Hutchinson and Waters (1987:65) have defined a course as “An integrated series of teaching-learning experiences, whose ultimate aim is to lead the learners to a particular state of knowledge.

          Munby continues saying (1978:2) ESP courses are : “Those where the syllabus and the materials are determined by the prior analysis of the communication needs of the learner.” This means that the identification of learners' needs is the first step upon which the ESP course is going to be designed.

          Thus, the ESP course takes into consideration not only the subject area of the learners, but also the lexical, semantic and structural aspects of the language characteristics of that specialized area.

          There are four topics related to issues in ESP course design. The first topic is language varieties, that is, descriptions of language use in specific academic, workplace, or professional environments. The second is need analysis, the type of investigation ESP curriculum developers use to identify the gap between what learners already know and what they need to know in order to study or work in their specific target environments. Curriculum developers use findings from needs analyses to help them specify the content of syllabuses. The third is syllabus and the fourth is narrow and wide-angle course design.

CONTENT

A.           Varieties of Language

The term variety refers to registers of language use, such as English in banking, English in medicine, English in academic settings, and everyday conversation. According to Bloor and Bloor (1986), there are two perspectives on the term language for specific purposes. One is that a specific-purposes language is based on and extends from a basic core of general language (the common core plus). The second is that all language exists as one variety or another and that there is no basic core (‘general-purpose’) language.

1.      The Common Core Plus

It can be argued that there is a common core of general language that is drawn on in all areas of life and work. This can also be referred to as ‘basic’ language.

 

The picture shows a representation of common core language and its relationship to language varieties (Pitt Corder, 1993).

The inner section represents basic language and includes common words and sentence structures that can be used in all situations. The common core is represented as a general pool of language of high frequency items that predominates all uses of languages. Pitt Corder (1993) described this view as an abstraction. He argued:

“The utility of such a notion is rather doubtful. If, for example, a learner wishes to converse with lawyers in a foreign language, then those items which are part of legal language are central to his needs; many of them, however, have very low ‘relative frequency’ in ‘the language as a whole’.”

The idea that different varieties of English are based on a common set of grammatical and other linguistic characteristics has been widespread (Bloor & Bloor, 1986). The idea is reflected in the following quotation from Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartik (1972), who argued that learners need to come to grips with basic in English before they study English for specific purposes:

“Attempts to teach a ‘restricted’ language (‘English for Engineers’) too often  ignore the danger in so doing of trying to climb a ladder which is sinking in the mud; it is no use trying to approach a point on the upper rungs if there is no foundation.”

Coxhead and Nation (2001) categorize vocabulary for teaching and learning into four groups of words: high frequency words, academic vocabulary, technical vocabulary, and low frequency vocabulary. They argue: ‘When learners have mastered control of the 2,000 words of general usefulness in English, it is wise to direct vocabulary learning to more specialized areas depending on the aims of the learners’.

2.      All Language is Specific Purpose

A second perspective is that there is no common core of language preexisting to varieties. The core is, rather, an essential part of any one of the innumerable varieties of the language (Bloor & Bloor, 1986). In short, ‘basic’ language is what is present in all varieties of English, where the varieties overlap. All languages are learned in some context or another. There is thus no ‘basic’ variety-less English, there is no ‘general English’ or English for no specific purposes. All English exists as some variety or another. Bloor and Bloor (1986) assert:

“All language learning is acquired from one variety or another, even if it is ‘classroom English’ variety. A language learner is as likely to acquire ‘the language’ from one variety as from another, but the use of language, being geared to situation and participants, is learned in appropriate contexts. This view supports a theory of language use as the basis of language acquisition theory.”

According to Bloor and Bloor (1986), teaching a specific variety of English (ESP) can start at any level including beginners. Moreover, learning from the specific variety of English (for example, English for doctors, English for hospitality), is highly effective as learners acquire structures in relation to the range of meanings in which they are used in their academic, workplace, or professional environments.

B.            Need Analysis

Needs Analysis (also known as Needs Assessment) is a means of defining as precisely as possible the learners’ language needs and understanding what they think they can obtain from the language course. It has a vital role in the process of designing and carrying out any language course, it can be English for Specific Purposes or a General English course, and it centrally has been acknowledged by several scholars and authors.

Needs analysis is neither unique to language teaching nor within language training but it is often seen as being the corner stone of ESP and leads to a very focused course (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998: 122). Although there are various ways of interpreting needs, the concept of learner needs is often interpreted in two ways:

“as what the learner wants to do with the language (goal-oriented definition of needs) which relates to terminal objectives or the end of learning; and

what the learner needs to do to actually acquire the language (a process-oriented definition) which relates to transitional/means of learning.”

In view of these concerns, Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998: 145) discuss criteria for ESP course design and put forward useful steps for ESP teachers and course designers to consider. They list these concerns surrounding course design in the form of the following questions:

1.        Should the course be intensive or extensive?

2.        Should the learners performance be assessed or non-assessed?

3.        Should the course deal with immediate needs or with delayed needs?

4.        Should the role of the teacher be that of the provider of knowledge and activities, or should it be as facilitator of activities arising from learners expressed wants?

5.        Should the course have a broad focus or narrow focus?

6.        Should the course be pre-study or pre-experience or run parallel with the study or experience?

7.        Should the materials be common-core or specific to learners study or work?

8.        Should the group taking the course be homogenous or should it be heterogeneous?

9.        Should the course design be worked out by the language teacher after consultation with the learners and the institution, or should it be subject to a process of negotiation with the learners?

By asking these questions prior to planning course design, the ESP teacher can be better prepared, more so if the teacher has to balance out some of these parameters which are linked to institutional and learner expectations (Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998). In this respect, these parameters of course design were considered and adhered to by the researcher and will be addressed in the findings section below.

Needs analysis in ESP has been critiqued and a number of issues identified in this seemingly neutral enterprise. Some of the criticisms and issues are:

1.        The information too often comes from the institutions themselves, who already have definite expectations about what the students should be able to do, and thus needs analysis serves the interests of the institutions, often at the expense of the learners (Auerbach, 1995).

2.        Language training for specific purposes can be a covert means to channel immigrants into marginal occupations, ensuring that they only have sufficient English to perform specific low-wage jobs and do not have good enough English to be able to move out of these jobs (Tollefson, 1991).

3.        The learners are often asked for their perceptions of needs but they may not be reliable sources of information about their own needs, especially if they are relatively unfamiliar with the job they are to perform or subject they are to study (Long, 1996).

4.        Objective needs are not necessarily the same as subjective needs or wants. For example, engineering students may objectively need to deal with written texts concerned with technical matter but may want to read topics in English on other general interest subjects. Using technical texts, topics, or tasks may turn out to be demotivating.

5.        Language needs are not learning needs. Although learners will need to use certain language structures or features in their target environments, this does not mean that they are ready to acquire them (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).

6.        Asking learners about their language needs can be problematic because they may lack awareness or meta-language to describe these needs in any meaningful way. It is improbable that students with unsophisticated knowledge about language would make sound decisions about their needs (Chambers, 1980).

7.        Language use in specific situations is simply too unpredictable to be identified in any certain terms. ESP has sometimes produced a rigid view of language needs and failed to take account of the variation of language use that exists in any target situation. A striking example of a rigid approach to analysis of language needs is seen in Munby’s Communicative Needs Processor (1978). This approach involved the attempt to identify not only the English language functions that would be needed (for example, by a waiter working in a Spanish tourist resort) but also the actual linguistic formula for realising these functions.

8.        Perspectives of needs vary and the needs analyst has to decide whose perspectives to take into account in designing ESP courses or synthesize divergent perspectives (Jasso-Aguilar, 1999).

9.        Basing course designs on needs analysis may lead to language training rather than language education. Learners are trained to perform a restricted repertoire of the language rather than develop underlying linguistic competence of the language because they are deprived of the generative basis of language (Widdowson, 1983).

10.    Needs analysis is a means of fitting outsiders into the communicative practices of linguistically privileged in-groups. Needs analysis purports to be a neutral enterprise but in fact is often used by institutions to get others to conform to established communicative practices (Benesch, 2001).

11.    Needs analyses are not theoretically neutral. It can be argued that “any system of needs analysis is related to the theory of the nature of language (West, 1994, p. 2). One needs analyst may aim to identify the language functions used in a particular environment whereas another may aim to identify high frequency syntactic features or lexical items occurring in the same environment.

C.            Types of Syllabuses

One of the fundamental questions for language teaching is what language is to be taught. In order to specify what language will be taught, items are typically listed and referred to as the syllabus.

Graves (1996) discusses the language curriculum and syllabus. She describes the curriculum as a broad statement of the philosophy, purposes, design, and implementation of the entire language teaching program and the syllabus as a specification and ordering of content of a course.

                                    The picture shows a fairly standard view of the syllabus.

The seemingly straightforward procedure of specifying and ordering content involves, however, embracing one or more of a number of theoretical stances. In this respect, syllabus is aligned to the overall ‘philosophy’ of the course or courses. The ‘items’ or units teachers and course developers specify as course content and how they organize them reveal their ideas of the nature of language and learning. If they construe language as a set of communicative purposes, they would probably list various pragmatic functions (speech acts) of language (such as request, report, and describe) as course content.

Syllabuses can be synthetic (language is segmented into discrete linguistic items for presentation one at a time) or analytic (language is presented whole chunks at a time without linguistic control; Long & Crookes, 1992). Designers of analytic syllabuses believe the language content for a course should not be pre-specified because language cannot be atomized into discrete particles for ‘learning.’ Rather, language should be approached holistically and teaching should proceed from the whole to the parts (Freeman & Freeman, 1989). Those who embrace the view that learning occurs when learners acquire individual items of language one by one and later combine them might opt for a synthetic syllabus that lists the linguistic items to be learnt. Those who embrace a view that learning occurs when learners perceive patterns in language samples and induce rules from them might opt for an analytic syllabus and list items that do refer not to language units but to some other sort of unit, such as task, situation, or topic.

When teachers and course designers opt for a synthetic approach and list items for the syllabus, the type of items listed reveals their ideas about what is important in two ways:

1. The types of items listed reveals ideas about the basic units of language and understanding of what ‘packages’ language naturally comes in. Is language best seen as the expression of intended actions of individual users (speech acts) or as patterns of language use that emerge in group practices over time (genres)? Does language come in sentences or texts?

2. The selection of items included reveals ideas about what is important. We may list pragmatic functions indicating a view of language as the intended actions of individual users (speech acts). However, as the number of possible pragmatic functions is very long, we need to select the pragmatic functions we see as the most important. We may feel that knowing how to request factual information and responding to requests to it are essential elements and thus include them in our list. This might indicate our orientation to an idea that language for specific purposes is concerned first and foremost with conveying factual information—the referential function of language. We may think that offering condolences or eliciting sympathy are somehow less essential and not include them, indicating a view that language for specific purposes is not about social purposes.

As it is not possible to teach all of a language, teachers and course designers must be selective. Nowhere is this more so than in ESP teaching, with its emphasis on specific purposes and the limited duration of most ESP courses. It is often by selecting what to teach that language teachers show their notions of what language is and their beliefs as to what is important in language learning. This point was also made by Hutchinson and Waters (1987), who claimed that specifying course content was value laden and revealed our notions of what language is and how language is learned. In short, the selection of course content reflects our ideas of language learning. See the picture.

Based on their observations of general English language courses, Brown (1995) and Richards (1990) list the following types of syllabuses. They also point out that courses are often based on a combination.

1.      Structural (organized primarily around grammar and sentence patterns).

2.      Functional (organized around communicative functions, such as identifying, reporting, correcting, and describing).

3.      Notional (organized around conceptual categories, such as duration, quantity, location).

4.      Topical (organized around themes or topics, such as health, food, and clothing).

5.      Situational (organized around speech settings and the transactions associated with them, such as shopping, at the bank, at the supermarket).

6.      Skills (organized around micro-skills, such as listening for gist, listening for specific information, listening for inferences).

7.      Task- or activity-based (organized around activities, such as drawing maps, following directions, following instructions).

In EAP teaching, Flowerdew and Peacock (2001a) list the following types of syllabus:

1.        Lexico-grammatical (organized around structures and vocabulary).

2.        Functional-notional (organized around language functions and notions).

3.        Discourse-based (organized around aspects of text cohesion and coherence).

4.        Learning-centered (organized on what the learners have to do in order to learn language items and skills, not the items and skills themselves).

5.        Skills-based (organized around particular skills).

6.        Genre-based (organized around conventions and procedures in genres) as units of analysis).

7.        Content-based (organized around themes).

Some syllabus types (structural, functional, notional, discourse- and genre-based) list the language to be taught. However, this is only one possible way to go. White (1988) identifies three options, listing content (forms, situations, function, and topics), skills (language or learning), or methods.

One methods option is the task-based syllabus, a syllabus type that is widely embraced at present. The task-based syllabus comprises a list of tasks (for example, giving instructions or following directions) that the students will perform. It is argued that tasks provide a purpose for using language meaningfully and that through struggling to use language to complete the task, the students acquire language. Prahbu (1987) explains:

“Task-based teaching operates with the concept that, while the conscious mind is working out some of the meaning content, a subconscious part of the mind perceives, abstracts, or acquires (or recreates, as a cognitive structure) some of the linguistic structuring embodied in those entities, as a step in the development of an internal system of rules.”

Long and Crookes (1992) argue that task-based syllabuses in ESP specify ‘real world tasks.’ By contrast, in general English language teaching, the precise definition of the tasks is not a primary concern. Whereas in general English language teaching tasks are chosen for the pedagogical value, in ESP they may be chosen for their relevance to real world events in the target environments.

D.           Narrow and Wide-angle Course Design

A course developer is faced with a group of students who are planning to study English for Academic Purposes (EAP). The course developer can divide the students into classes according to their respective disciplines. She or he could make two English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) courses, English for engineering studies and English for social science. The course developer might further divide the groups. The engineering students could be split into English for computer engineering, chemical engineering, and civil engineering classes. Or the course developer might not group the students according to discipline at all and prefer to design English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) program. Another course developer is faced with a group of mixed experienced medical professionals. Should the developer divide them into sub-disciplines—nurses, doctors, and medical technicians—or simply split them up into proficiency levels and focus on general medical English rather than English for doctors, English for nursing, and English for medical technology? The question is how specific, or narrow angled, ESP courses should be.

Some approach the question of specificity as a practical problem related to the specificity of needs. Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) state that where needs are limited, a narrow-angled course may be appropriate and the course can legitimately focus on a few target events and use content or topics from one discipline. Where the needs are more general, the course can focus on a wider range of target events and use content and topics from a range of disciplines.

Others approach the question by referring to research findings. Clapham (2001) reports on research investigating the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension in EAP. The investigation revealed that although students generally achieved higher scores on texts from their subject areas, this was not always the case, and sometimes students did better on texts that were outside their subject area. Clapham concluded that as texts vary widely in terms of their specificity and students vary widely in terms of their background knowledge, English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) may be preferable to English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP).

Ferris (2001) describes two approaches used in designing ESOL academic writing classes in the United States. The first focuses on developing a set of generalized academic writing skills with the expectation that the learners will transfer these general skills and strategies to writing tasks in their own specific discipline (EGAP). The second focuses on teaching students to analyze and imitate the norms of the specific discipline they wish to enter (ESAP). Ferris surveyed U.S. universities to find that although most writers of scholarly publications advocated the second position, in reality, the majority of academic writing programs followed the more generalized approach.

E.             A Number of Parameters in ESP

A number of parameters need to be investigated in making decision about course design namely:

1.         The identification of needs.

Needs analysis is an essential characteristic of any ESP syllabus and course design. The awareness of the need for learning English is a further important characteristic that differentiate ESP course from any ordinary general English course. To this effect, Hutchinson and Waters (1987:53) write: “What distinguishes ESP from general English is not the existence of a need as such but rather an awareness of the need.”

Needs are defined as being the requirements that the students have in order to be able to communicate effectively in the target situation. They are also defined as what the students need to learn to acquire the language.

The above definitions imply the existence of two main types of needs that the ESP course designer has to take into consideration while establishing his/her syllabus: Target needs and Learning needs.

a.       Target needs

Target needs refer to what the learners need to do in order to be able to communicate effectively in the target situation. Viewing the definition as such the meaning is likely to be closest to the term Objectives; this is why further divisions were made to differentiate between Necessities, lacks and wants.

1.      Necessities: These needs are determined by the demands of the target situation. It means what the learner has to know in order to function effectively in the target situation. For example, a teacher needs to understand about vocabulary, pronunciation and how to communicate effectively, etc. He or she will also need to know the linguistics features-discoursal, functional, structural, lexical, and most commonly used in the situations identified.

2.      Lacks: It is required to know what the learner knows already, so that it can be decided then which of the necessities the learners lack. According to what a learner already knows, we acknowledged that what necessities are missing. Knowing the lack of student will help a teacher to design appropriate course in study process. This is the gap between the existing proficiency and the target proficiency.

3.      Wants: Hutchinson and Waters‘ (1987) definition of wants (perceived or subjective needs of learners) corresponds to learning needs. Similar to the process used for target needs analysis, they suggest a framework for analyzing learning needs which consists of several questions, each divided into more detailed questions. According to what we have considered from an objective POV, we have to say that ― a need does not exist independent of a person. It is people who build their images of their need on the basis of data relating to themselves and their environment.

b.      Learning Needs

      Learning needs show how the students will be able to move from the starting point (lacks) to the final destination (necessities). Hutchinson and Waters (1987) claim that it is naive to base a course design simply on the target objectives, and that the learning situation must also be taken into account. They added that the target situation alone is not reliable indicator, and that the conditions of the learning situation, the learners' knowledge, skills, strategies, motivation for learning, the setting and the time loud are of prime importance.

      Learning needs are linked with the route to the destination set by target situation. It is naïve to base the course design and the whole ESP program merely on target needs. The methodological, administrative and psychological needs must occupy the same space in needs analysis as the target needs do. ESP learning is not a mechanical project to be imposed mechanically on the learners. The whole ESP program is an enjoyable, pleasing, manageable, generative, creative and productive activity.

      It is only possible when it is based on the full potential and constraints of both target needs and the learning situation. It needs to be clear, at this point, that learning is a broader term than learner. Though, being the most fundamental building block, a learner is the central part, yet not the whole of a learning process. There is much more in the overall learning process than just the learner to consider. Altman and James (1980), though following the term of learner-centered language teaching, points out three main distinctions of the learning or learner-centered approach in comparison with curriculum-centered and teacher-centered instruction. In learner-centered teaching approach, the needs and abilities of the learners determine the curriculum details and teaching requirements of the course. There are four main perspectives to view the learner-centered language teaching program: goals, means, rate, expectations. Further, the teachers are trained in way they can fulfill the needs of learners.

      The framework proposed by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) for analysis of learning needs is the following:

1. Why are the learners taking the course?

2. How do the learners learn?

3. What sources are available?

4. Who are the learners?

2.         Syllabus Design.

The syllabus provides the instructor and students with a contract, a common reference point that sets the stage for learning throughout the course.  Make sure that your students have easy access to the course syllabus by handing out hard copies on the first day of class and (if applicable) posting a digital copy on the course website. Common components included in a syllabus namely:

a.         Course description

1.      Course content: What is the basic content of the course and what makes it important or interesting?  How does the course fit into the context of the discipline?

2.      Learning objectives: What should students be able to do by the end of the course?  Objectives are most helpful when they are expressed in terms of knowledge and skills that can be readily identified and assessed.  For example, the ability to recognize, differentiate, apply or produce is much more readily identifiable than the ability to appreciate or understand.

3.      Characteristics of class meetings:  What types of activities should students be prepared for?  Discussion?  Lecture?  Small groups?  Student presentations?

4.      Logistics:  What are the instructor’s and TAs’ names?  How can they be contacted?  How are course materials obtained?  When and where does the class meet?

b.        Course topics and assignments

1.      Schedule of topics and readings: What will the main topics of the course be and when will they be addressed?  What will students need to do to prepare for each class?  Most instructors include a weekly or daily schedule of topics they intend to address, along with a list of assigned readings and other course materials.

2.      Assignments, projects and exams: How will students demonstrate their learning?  Include learning goals, estimated scope or length, assessment criteria and dates.  Instructors typically include a breakdown, in point values or percentages, of how much each assignment or test contributes to a student’s final grade.

c.         Course policies and values

What values will shape your teaching in the course and what policies will guide you?  Policies and values that you might want to communicate through your syllabus include:

1.      Inclusiveness:  How can your syllabus help you create an inclusive atmosphere that welcomes all students?  Some instructors include statements inviting participation from all students, honoring student diversity and differing points of view, or inviting requests for disability accommodations.

2.      Integrity:  What are policies and procedures regarding academic integrity and misconduct in relation to materials and assignment for this course?  For example, considering the types of work you are asking students to do, what do you want to communicate about working with data?  representing original sources? accountability for contributions to group projects?

3.      Responsibility:  What do students need to know about your expectations regarding assignments, attendance, online participation or classroom interactions?  Other possibilities include policies regarding late work, make-up exams and preparation for class participation.

4.      Expectations for success:   How can students learn most successfully in your course?  In your syllabus, you can express confidence that all students are capable of doing well and you can suggest strategies for success.  For example, what strategies for learning are particularly important for this material?  What resources — such as study centers, web tutorials or writing centers — are available to help students succeed in your course?

3.         Materials Production

The ESP course designing process involves one last major question: WHAT exactly are the materials used during the course? After having completed the needs analysis, after having chosen the teaching theory, the teacher has to decide what materials he/she is going to use with his/her students. He/she has three possibilities of actually transforming his/her course design in teaching materials:

1.      Materials evaluation = a process of selecting from already existing materials;

2.      Materials development = a process of writing new materials;

3.      Materials adaptation = a process of selecting and modifying existing materials.

4.         Evaluation and Assessment.

Evaluation is a judgment by the instructor or educational researcher about whether the program or instruction has met its Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO).

Assessment is the systematic collection of data to monitor the success of a program or course in achieving intended learning outcomes (ILOs)* for students.  Assessment is used to determine:

a.         What students have learned (outcome)

b.        The way they learned the material (process)

c.         Their approach to learning before, during, or after the program or course

You can assess students before instruction to get a baseline of what students know (for example, by administering a pretest).  During instruction, assessment can be used to determine what students are learning so you can adjust your teaching, if needed.  Quizzes or mud cards, which ask students to identify the “muddiest point” that remains for them after the class, are two methods of this kind of “formative assessment.”  After instruction, you can use assessment for two purposes:  (1) to determine if there has been a change in knowledge (final exams can be used for “summative assessment”); and (2) to provide you with information to revise the class or program.

F.             Example of Course Design

Lesson Plan- BUILDING BLOCKS OF GRAMMAR

1.       Objectives :

·      To teach them basics of grammar

·      To revise their prior knowledge about building blocks of grammar

·      To make them with rules

·      Practice

Input : use of activities, including exercise regarding building blocks.

Output : they will learn rules and use of grammar.

2.      Level : Elementary

3.      Time : 60-65 Min. approximately.

4.      Aids/materials : building blocks of grammar chart, board, and board marker.

Grammar Lesson

Important Building Blocks of Grammar

Nouns : is a word used as the name of a person, place or thing.

Example : King, Mohan, Sarita, Table.

Pronouns : is a word used instead of a noun.

Example : He, She, It, They.

Articles : is the words “a”, “an”, and “the”. They used before nouns.

Verbs : is a word that describes an action or occurrence or indicates a state of being.

Example : He talks to me, She sings a song.

 Adjectives : is a word used to describe a noun.

Example : Beautiful flower, tall man.

Adverbs :  is a word which modifies the meaning of a verb, adjective, or another adverb.

Example : He runs fast.

Prepositions : is a word which shows the relation between noun or pronoun and other words in the sentence.

Example : The boy is in the room.

Conjunctions : is a word which joins to sentences to complete their meaning.

Example : They reached the station but it was too late.

Interjections : is a word which expresses sudden feeling or emotion.

Example : Hello! Hurray!

Activity

Choose the correct word

1.      She could hard/hardly walk after the accident.

2.      My book is near/nearly finished.

3.      She is too short/shortly. She cannot be a model.

4.      I would like two tickets for the late/lately show.

5.      There is near/nearly no money left.

CONCLUSION

1.             Course design is interpretation on learning needs data to produce an integrated series of teaching- learning experience. The aim of it is lead learner to a particular state of knowledge.

2.             There are four topics related to issues in ESP course design : 1. Language varieties; 2. Need analysis; 3. Syllabus; 4. Narrow and wide-angle course design.

3.             A Number of Parameters in ESP : 1. The identification of needs; 2. Syllabus design; 3. Materials production; 4. Evaluation and assessment.

REFERENCES

Basturkmen, Helen. 2006. Ideas and Options in English for Specific Purposes. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse-ESP.html (Tuesday, April 05, 2016, 4.00 PM)

http://tll.mit.edu/help/assessment-and-evaluation (Tuesday, April 05, 2016, 4.10 PM)

http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_14/DESIGNING%20ESP%20COURSES.htm (Tuesday, April 05, 2016, 4.15 PM)

http://www.romanice.ase.ro/dialogos/06/27c_Nitu_Design.pdf (Tuesday, April 05, 2016, 4.20 PM)

http://www.washington.edu/teaching/teaching-resources/preparing-to-teach/designing-your-course-and-syllabus/ (Tuesday, April 05, 2016, 4.23 PM)