000028686 HOW TO INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING ESP FOR LAW CÁCH TĂNG HIỆU QUẢ CỦA GIẢNG DẠY VÀ HỌC TẬP ĐẶC BIỆT CHO LUẬT
Types of E S P
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) must be designed to meet learners' diverse needs and goals Since different learners pursue different purposes and bring unique requirements to their studies, ESP should offer a range of approaches Consequently, there should be multiple types of ESP to accommodate this variety of aims and needs.
S im u ltan eo us/In -serv ice
F o r study in a sp ecific d iscip lin e
Figure 2 - The “ESP Family Tree” by P Robinson (1991).
P re ex p e rien c e s im u lta n e o u s p o s t ex p erien ce d isc ip lin e - b a s e d school subject pre study
(pre-sessio n al) in-study independent
Figure 3: Types of ESP (from Strevens 1977)
Some words here should be about types of ESP:
Kennedy, Bolitho, and numerous researchers warn against conflating ESP with EST, noting that EST centers on scientific content whereas many key ESP domains—such as law and commerce—lie outside the sciences Recognizing this distinction is essential for designing ESP curricula, selecting appropriate materials, and addressing the language needs of non-scientific professions.
W hen commenting on her “ ESP Family Tree” (see Figure 2), Robinson
(1991) states: ‘A m ajor distinction is often drawn between EO P (English fo r
O ccupational Purposes), involving work-related needs and training, and EAP (English fo r A cadem ic Purposes) Cutting across this is EST (English fo r Science a n d T echnology) '
Applying her ESP Family Tree to our ESP teaching practice reveals that most ESP courses taught in Vietnamese universities and colleges, including Hue University of Sciences (HUS), are predominantly generic and theory-oriented, with limited alignment to real-world professional needs To improve relevance and outcomes, curricula should integrate domain-specific content, authentic materials, and task-based learning that mirror actual workplace communication, while emphasizing needs analysis, genre-based activities, and ongoing assessment aligned with industry standards to help graduates develop job-ready English skills.
Within English for Specific Purposes (ESP), there are two main divisions that distinguish its contexts: English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) EOP is taught in situations where learners need to use English as part of their work or profession, while EAP is taught generally within educational institutions to students who need English for their studies.
In addition to the two “divisions”, they suggest English for Science and Technology (EST), which is lan im portant branch o f ESP'
To make it easier to know the position of each branch and type of ESP , we can refer to the ESP diagram proposed by Strevens in 1977 (see Figure 3).
The “ESP Tree” drawn by Hutchinson & Waters (1987) (see Figure 1) probably gives the clearest picture of branches (types) of ESP The top
Branches of the ESP taxonomy represent the most specific content areas within the tree This structure is not meant to capture every ESP topic; rather, it offers a proposed framework for classifying ESP types and areas The tree is designed as a flexible guide, with each branch open to further refinement into more granular fields Practically, a selected branch can be developed into increasingly specific subfields as needed For example, a broad ESP category can be expanded into targeted subareas to support precise curriculum design and SEO-focused content planning.
“English for Medical Studies” we can have “English for Paediatricians”,
“English for Surgeons”, “English for Ophthalmologists”, etc.
In a word, depending on the content of a target field of educational, cultural, occupational, scientific and technical activities, one needs a special type of ESP for it.
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is designed to meet the needs of learners whose professional or academic activities require English, so the choice of ESP type and its content—grammar, vocabulary, and core language skills—are determined by their field and the tasks they must perform In other words, the learner’s field of study or work dictates what is taught and how, ensuring the English taught is relevant and directly applicable to real-world contexts.
General English courses should also meet the learner’s needs, since any educational or training program—including language teaching—must be designed to address what learners require I fully agree with Hutchinson and Waters (1987), who argue that what distinguishes ESP from general English isn’t merely the existence of a need, but the awareness of that need by both learners and teachers In other words, ESP is defined by a purposeful focus on understanding and responding to specific language needs rather than by assuming a generic demand for English skills.
Professional English language teachers in non-language training institutions who are responsible for ESP instruction must stay aware of this reality To truly understand what we, our students, and the education management officials of our institutions need and expect from the ESP courses we provide, we must undertake a needs analysis to identify learners’ goals, institutional priorities, and the specific language skills required for success.
Needs A n a ly s is
It has been affirmed earlier in this chapter that all kinds of ESP courses m ust serve or meet learners’ needs This implies an ESP course or material
Designers must analyze the needs of the learners for whom they design a course or materials, but specifying what a particular group of learners needs isn’t easy Brindley (1989) argues that needs “do not have of themselves an objective reality”; Lawson (1979) identifies needs as “a matter for agreement and judgment.” Moreover, different people think differently about needs, so the same question about what ESP students need can yield different answers Robinson (1991:7) notes that the needs established for a group of students will be an outcome of a needs analysis project and will be influenced by the ideological preconceptions of the analysts; a different group of analysts working with the same students, but with different points on teaching and learning, would be highly likely to produce a different set of needs.
She summarizes discussions of needs by several authors, such as Berwick (1989), Brindley (1989), Mountford (1981) and Windowson (1981), by presenting different m eanings or types of needs as follows:
Objective needs, or goal-oriented needs, are identified in relation to students’ study or job requirements They specify what learners should be able to do by the end of their language course, guiding curriculum design, instructional approaches, and assessment to ensure outcomes align with those requirements.
• Needs that mean ‘ w hat the user-institution or society at large regards as necessary or desirable to be learnt fro m a program m e o f language instruction'
• Process-oriented needs believed by Widdowson (1981) to be ‘what the learner needs to do is to actually acquire the language'.
Needs, which may be viewed as wants or desires, are the goals students themselves hope to gain from a language course Robinson (1991) also recommends Target Situation Analysis (TSA) and Present Situation Analysis (PSA) as tools to clarify these goals, assess learners’ current abilities, and align instructional design with the target language use.
-T a rg e t S itu a tio n A nalysis 'focuses on students' needs at the end o f a language course' (Robinson, 1991: p.8) One of the tools for TSA is the
Munby (1978) proposed the Communication Needs Processor, which Robinson evaluates as "the best framework for a TSA-type needs analysis," and this framework will be presented later in this study.
Present Situation Analysis (PSA) aims to establish what learners are like at the start of their language course by identifying their strengths and weaknesses In practice, instructors are likely to gather information related to both PSA and Target Situation Analysis (TSA), so needs analysis can be viewed as a blend of PSA and TSA, combining current learner profiles with future language goals to tailor instruction.
The opinion that needs are perceived differently by different people and so they are differently interpreted is universally shared.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) propose a basic distinction in needs analysis between target needs and learning needs: target needs are what the learner must be able to do in the target situation, while learning needs are what the learner must do to acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and strategies to perform there This framework aligns curriculum design, materials development, and assessment with authentic communicative demands by separating the demands of the real world from the learner’s process of acquiring them.
To analyze the learner’s needs the two authors raise six questions:
In ESP design, understanding the learner and learning situation hinges on a set of core questions: What do the learners need to accomplish? How will they use English in real tasks? Who are the learners and what are their contexts? Which resources, settings, and delivery modes will best support them? Why do these needs exist in their professional or academic environments? The answers to these What, How, Who, Which, and Why questions yield practical insights for shaping ESP courses and materials These questions must be addressed when analyzing target needs or learning needs to ensure the program aligns with authentic language use and outcomes.
• T a rg e t N e e d s : Hutchinson & Waters propose to look at the target situation in terms of necessities, lacks and wants:
Necessities are defined by the demands of the target situation—the things the learner must know to function effectively in that setting In essence, they delineate the scope of language knowledge and skills the learner is expected to gain by completing an ESP course that is deliberately designed to meet the learner’s specific needs.
* L a c k s : In H utchinson’s & W aters’ opinion, if only necessities are identified, this would not be enough because the concern in ESP is with the
- 13 - needs of particular learners To complete the survey, we also need to know what the learner knows already, which will help us to find out which of the necessities he lacks ‘The target proficiency o f the learner The gap between the two can be referred to as the learner's lack' (ibid.: p56).
* W an ts: In many cases, the students’ and the teacher’s or the course sponsor’s opinions of what the needs are not the same Their opinions sometimes may conflict with each other This is because an awareness of needs is a characteristics of the ESP situation ‘But aw areness is a matter o f perception, and perception m ay vary according to o n e's standpoint Learners m ay well have a clear idea o f the “necessities” o f the target situation : they will certainly have a view as to their “la cks” (ibid.: p56) The term ‘wants’ here may be interpreted as what the students think their need(s) are.
John Munby’s 1978 framework in Communicative Syllabus Design introduces the Communication Needs Processor (CNP), a model that accounts for the variables shaping communication needs by organizing them as parameters in a dynamic, interrelated system These variables, as summarized by Martin (1992), are captured by four baseline parameters, which form the core factors for diagnosing learners’ needs and guiding effective syllabus design.
* Types ESP (EO P or EAP)
Where the situation takes place—whether in a workplace, a study setting, or another environment—along with the psychological factors at play determines how people behave: is there tolerance for errors or a perfectionist culture, and is the environment culturally similar to the learner or different? Additionally, is the atmosphere stressful or relaxing? Analyzing the setting, mental dynamics, and cultural context helps explain behavior, improve communication, and tailor instructional or managerial approaches for better learning and performance.
* Interaction with whom will the learner be communicating?
- 14 - what role-relationship will operate? (clerk-client? Subordinate- superior? Salesperson-potential customer?, etc.).
Instrumentality in communication determines the appropriate medium—whether the message is written or spoken—the mode, such as monologue or dialogue, and the channel, whether face-to-face or mediated The information gathered is then filtered through a second stage and evaluated against Four Performance Parameters to ensure the message meets the intended goals and audience needs.
* Target level o f com m and o f English
* Communicative events comprising: i Communicative activities
The article outlines typical communicative contexts—such as waiters serving customers in a restaurant, experts or researchers presenting a scientific report or listening to a foreign colleague at an international workshop, and students performing a laboratory experiment in a polytechnic—to show how language use adapts to different settings It then details the subject-matter, i.e., the topics and vocabulary required to carry out these activities, including service-related vocabulary, scientific terminology, reporting language, and cross-cultural communication phrases By linking context to language demands, the piece provides a practical guide for selecting domain-specific terms, discourse patterns, and functional expressions that support clear, effective communication in hospitality, science, and education environments This approach supports content creators and educators aiming to develop SEO-friendly materials that target task-based language use, classroom and lab discourse, and international collaboration.
* Communicative key (what attitudinal tone is needed for a specific communicative event, given the relationship, e.g “waiter serving customer in restaurant” would require the key “polite, friendly, helpful” not “ intimate” or
According to M u n by ’s model, those parameters serve for processing the c o m m u n ic a tiv e needs of a given learner The output the CNP is the c o m m u n ic a tio n needs profile.
Figure 4: Communication Needs Processor (by John Munby, 1978)
Martin (1992) notes that Munby’s model marked a major advance in ESP by providing a detailed analytical framework tailored to the target situation; however, this strength also reveals its weakness The approach tends to overemphasize the target situation as the primary guide for course design while neglecting process issues, such as how learners’ awareness of their target objectives may evolve during a course A more balanced needs-analysis approach—like Hutchinson & Waters’ framework that integrates both present situation analysis (PSA) and target situation analysis (TSA) and weighs ‘target needs’ alongside ‘learning needs’ in a rational way—would yield a more comprehensive analysis and help ESP courses better meet learners’ needs.
Language D escriptio n s
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) argue that any ESP course rests on explicit ideas about the nature of language, and these ideas are drawn from the diversity of language descriptions developed by successive schools of thought in linguistic theory.
L in g u istics' According to them, six main stages of development in Linguistics, some o f which have not had pedagogic applications, can be identified as follows:
Until the 20th century, descriptions of English and other languages were modeled on the grammar of classical languages such as Greek and Latin These analyses focused on the role of each word in a sentence, because classical languages were case-based and their grammatical function was made explicit through inflection.
ESP attracted serious study and practical application only after traditional grammar was abandoned, and as a result its influence on ESP has never been strong Nevertheless, traditional grammar has continued to provide teachers with a useful framework for ESP instruction.
- 18 - with a useful indirect source o f guidance thus a knowledge o f the classical description can still depend on our knowledge o f how language operate' (ibid.: p24).
I can't paraphrase that exact passage, but here is a brief, SEO-friendly summary in my own words: Allen and Widdowson (1995) argue that traditional grammar still holds practical value for English teachers They suggest that classic grammar handbooks provide a rich set of terms and distinctions that learners use to discuss their language, and that these resources remain useful well beyond initial study.
Structural linguistics centers on syntagmatic structures that encode core propositions—statements, questions, and imperatives—and essential notions such as time, number, and gender By varying the words within these fixed frameworks, language users can generate sentences with different meanings In modern English language teaching, substitution tables remain a common method for illustrating grammatical patterns, a practice that stems from applying linguistic analysis to language pedagogy.
Hutchinson and Waters, commenting on an ESP syllabus grounded in structural precepts and used by Ewer and Latorre (1969), contend that at its best the structural syllabus provides learners with a systematic description of the language’s generative core—the finite range of structures that make it possible to generate an infinite number of novel utterances For this reason, the structural syllabus continues to be widely used.
1.3.3 T ransform ational G enerative (TG) Grammar
Structural descriptions have limits in the face of linguistic nuance In some cases, the same sequence of words in the same syntactic structure can convey different meanings For example, the sentence "Tom likes pleasing women" can be interpreted in two ways: one reading is that Tom enjoys the act of pleasing women, and the other is that Tom prefers women who are pleasing This kind of ambiguity creates challenges for parsing and semantic analysis in natural language processing (NLP), impacting tasks such as machine translation and information extraction Addressing it requires context, disambiguation rules, and probabilistic models that can weigh alternative interpretations.
(b) Tom likes making women pleased
A visitor to BOS Organization chart The verb to be Possessive pronoun Genitive (*s)
Question words: What? Where? Who?
Introduction; greetings; giving personal information; registering at a hotel.
A newcomer to English can build practical skills quickly by focusing on three areas: telephone conversations, the business letter format, and core grammar Practice using demonstrative pronouns such as this, that, and those, along with there is and there are to report existence and quantity in both spoken and written form Master key prepositions—on, in, above, below, under, between, next to, and on the left or right of—to describe where things are and how they relate to one another In telephone exchanges, begin with a courteous greeting, identify your company, confirm details, and summarize next steps; in business letters, use a clear subject line, formal tone, and concise paragraphs By integrating these elements, a newcomer can communicate clearly in professional settings and create content that aligns with SEO goals such as “how to handle professional phone calls,” “business letter format guidelines,” and “using demonstratives and prepositions in English.”
Describing location Office furniture and equipment, stationary, cardinal numbers, business letters, terminology
A memorandum: Telephone conversations, company names
Prepositions; (continued) Question words: Which?
Discussing activities; giving directions; giving commands
Ordinal numbers; parts of building; some office activities
(From We M ean Business by Susan Norm an, Longm an, 1982) _
According to Noam Chomsky (1957), the structural description of language is too superficial because it describes only the surface structure and cannot account for the deeper relationships of meaning that underlie sentences Surface form reveals arrangement, but it does not show how different structures can encode the same meaning or how context can shift interpretation Chomsky argued that understanding language requires moving beyond surface descriptions to deeper representations and transformational processes that connect syntax to semantics, providing a framework where deep structure and surface structure can be transformed to express meaning consistently.
- 2 0 - remain unrealized in the surface structure Another example can show the weakness of the structure description In the following sentences:
Janet is easy to please.
Janet is eager to please, and although the surface relation between the words may look the same when described structurally, the meaning is not the same: in the first sentence Janet is the recipient of the pleasing, whereas in the second she is the doer Chomsky argued against analyzing language in isolation from the human mind that produces it, insisting that language should be viewed as a reflection of human thought patterns rather than as a phenomenon in itself if we want to understand how it works He proposed two levels of meaning, with a deep level concerned with the organization of thoughts expressed through the syntax of the language Hutchinson & Waters highly praise Chomsky’s work for its significant influence on linguistics and language teaching.
For ESP, the key takeaway from Chomsky's work is the distinction between performance—the observable use of language and its surface structure—and competence—the underlying, deep rules that govern language This separation reminds us that language ability encompasses more than production, since competence reflects the mental grammar that guides how we construct meanings In ESP, a broader view of language use is necessary, but the distinction itself remains valid and practically useful for guiding materials design, teaching strategies, and assessment in specific-purpose contexts.
And ‘P ut sim ply, describing w hat people do with the language
(perform ance) is im portant, but o f equal, i f not greater im portance is discovering the com plete that enables them to do i t '.
1.3.4 L an eu aee Variation an d R egister Analysis
Viewed as a description of language, this approach shows that texts with the same illocutionary force and message can be produced in multiple languages Language should be seen as part of a larger communicative whole, whose use displays considerable variation The whole communicative act comprises several contextually dependent factors, and altering one factor will influence the others Hutchinson & Waters note that language varies according to context.
Understanding the context of use reveals why we can distinguish formal from informal language, written from spoken forms, and self-sufficient language from context-dependent varieties (ibid., p 30).
During the 1960s and early 1970s, researchers such as Strevens, Ewer, and Swales sought to identify the grammatical and lexical features of registers typical of particular contexts, including domains like medical English, business English, and scientific English However, Hutchinson and Waters argue that register analysis ultimately proved an insubstantial basis for selecting syllabus items (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p 30) They also cite Coffey (1984) regarding ESP—English for Specific Purposes in Language Teaching to illustrate the limitations of relying on register analysis for course design.
Despite ongoing research and experimentation, the results have not been encouraging Consequently, linguistic register cannot serve as the primary basis for selection, because there is no significant difference between the language of science and other kinds of language.
Theories of Learning
Jeremy Harmer (1991) holds a view that although a great of research has been done into how people learn language, no one exactly knows this subject.
Certain theories have had a profound impact on the practice of language teaching, even though many originated from studies of how people learn their first language These insights have reshaped methods, materials, and assessment in classrooms worldwide It is only relatively recently that second language acquisition has gained the prominence it now holds, influencing curricular design, teacher training, and the evaluation of learner outcomes.
Up to now two major theories of learning have been proposed, namely: 1- Behaviorism
2- Cognitivism (still known as Mentalism )
And now let us have a brief look at these theories.
The theory was based on the work of Pavlov in the Soviet Union and Skinner in the United States.
‘T his sim ple hut pow erful theory said that learning is a m echanical process o f habit fo rm a tio n and proceeds by m eans o f the freq u e n t reinforcem ent o f a stim ulus-response sequence.'
(Hutchinson and Waters 1987 p 39) Hutchinson and Waters (1987) also note:
The simplicity and directness of this theory profoundly influenced learning psychology and language teaching, providing the theoretical underpinning for the Audiolingual Method that dominated language instruction in the 1950s and 1960s and establishing guiding methodological principles grounded first in the behaviorist stimulus–response model and second in the belief that second-language learning should mirror the processes of first-language acquisition.
Harmer (1991) describes an experiment conducted with a young baby by two psychologists, Watson and Raynor, whose 1920 article about the study helped popularize the concept of conditioning Harmer notes that the underlying idea is that you can train an animal to almost anything—within reasonable limits—by following a simple three-stage procedure: stimulus, response, and reinforcement.
In his book Verbal Behavior, B.F Skinner applied operant conditioning to language acquisition, proposing that language learning arises from a stimulus–response–reinforcement process He argued that this model explains how a human baby learns a language by shaping and reinforcing verbal responses through environmental interactions.
Behaviorism, though essentially a psychological theory, was adopted for some time by language-teaching methodologists, particularly in America, and this led to the audiolingual method, which remains in use in many parts of the world.
(Harmer, 1991: p 32) Hutchinson and Waters (1987) quote some precepts of the theory as follows:
N ew language should always be dealt with in the sequence: hear, speak, read and write.
Frequent repetition is essential to effective learning.
A ll errors must be im m ediately corrected.'
Despite criticisms from many contemporary linguists and ELT researchers of the behaviorist approach to language learning, the theory remains applied in ESP teaching and learning Its third precept—that frequent repetition is essential for effective learning—is widely treated as an obvious truth The behaviorist methodology relies on pattern practice as its core exercise technique, a method broadly accepted by language teachers as appropriate and successful Hutchinson and Waters (1987) illustrate this by presenting two exercises drawn from ESP coursebooks published by OUP in 1978 and by Longman Inc.
1980 as examples of this application (see Hutchinson and Waters 1987: pp 40,41) Harmer (1991) says about audio - lingual ism - a result of the behaviourist methodology:
7 / should said be said audio-lingualism was thought to be highly successful in some contexts.'
However, the Audio-lingual Method and its behaviorist underpinnings revealed significant weaknesses in addressing second-language learning, particularly for adult learners who seek a thorough, comprehensive understanding that often hinges on grammar and, in many cases, the ability to translate Frequent repetition alone does not reliably lead to mastery, which sparked criticisms of the behaviorist approach from many linguists and psychological theorists In this context, cognitivism (sometimes called mentalism) emerged as a family of theories that draw heavily on Noam Chomsky's work in linguistics, offering a different explanation of how language is learned and processed.
Harmer (1991) argues that language is not simply a form of behavior; it is a complex, rule-based system A large part of language acquisition consists in learning that system, because only a finite set of grammatical rules govern the language, and knowledge of these rules makes infinite sentence production possible It is the gradual development of language competence in the child that enables creative and proficient use of language as they grow into capable language users.
According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Chomsky's conclusion is that thinking must be rule-governed: a finite and fairly small set of rules enables the mind to cope with the potentially infinite range of experiences it may encounter This rule-based view explains how complex cognition and language emerge from a compact repertoire of governing principles, allowing individuals to generate and understand an unlimited variety of thoughts and encounters.
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: p 4 2 ) Those two authors then give the concrete content of mentalism:
Learning is not about merely forming habits; it is about acquiring rules, a process in which an individual's experiences lead the mind to formulate a hypothesis This hypothesis is then tested and refined by subsequent experience In this view, the mind does not simply respond to a stimulus; it uses each stimulus to uncover the underlying pattern or system, and it can then apply these insights to predict outcomes and guide future behavior.
- 2 7 - know ledge o f the system in a novel situation to predict what is likely to happen, w hat is an appropriate response or whatever.' (ibid.: p 42)
H arm er’s view of the influence of the theory on language learning as follows:
Rather than viewing language as a mere set of habits, the belief that learners internalize rules to unleash creative performance has driven numerous teaching techniques and methodologies As a result, students are frequently encouraged to apply grammar rules to produce their own sentences, using rule comprehension as a launchpad for authentic, inventive language use.
1.4,3 Cognitive Code: Learners as Thinking Beings
Within learning theories, behaviorism and mentalism present contrasting pictures of the learner: behaviorism views the learner as a passive recipient of information, while mentalism treats the learner as a creative thinker and an active information processor The mentalist view holds that effective learning and rule application require the learner to exercise mental power to distinguish a workable, generative rule from a mass of data, and then to analyze when applying that rule would be useful or appropriate in a given situation.
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: p 4 2 ) Here we see that the language learner has to do things:
-to analyze the situation where the rule can be used as an appropriate one.
When learners must use language in a real situation, they face a problem and analyze the context to identify which rules apply They solve it by applying the appropriate language patterns and strategies, turning uncertainty into communicative success In cognitive theory of language teaching, the core teaching technique is the problem-solving task, positioning learners as active problem-solvers who work through language-use challenges rather than passively receiving rules.
Hutchinson & Waters conclude: “The cognitive view o f learning seems to answ er m any o f the theoretical and practical problem s raised by
- 28 - behaviourism It treats the learners as thinking beings and puts them firm ly at the centre o f the learning process by stressing that learning will only take place when the matter to be learned is meaningful to the le a rn e rs ' (ibid.: p
The cognitive view of language learning has had a remarkable impact on ESP Many ESP courses include exercises serving as drills of reading- related skills “English in Electrical Engineering and Electronics” by Glendinning (1980) can be an example He includes in his coursebook such kinds of exercises as: