Bilingual instruction of commercial subjects in the context of teaching Business English [Elektronische Ressource] : bilingual versus non-bilingual students at the Bundeshandelsakademie 1 Salzburg / vorgelegt von Sonja Trampus

Do2

Informations

• Publié par: technischen_universitat_dortmund
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 32
• Langue: English

Extrait

BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL
SUBJECTS IN THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING
BUSINESS ENGLISH

Bilingual versus Non-Bilingual Students at
the Bundeshandelsakademie 1 Salzburg

Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doktor der Philosophie (Dr. phil.)

vorgelegt von
Sonja Trampus

Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Fakultät Kulturwissenschaften
Technische Universität Dortmund

1) Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. phil. Günter Nold, Universität Dortmund
2) Jürgen Kramer, Universität Dortmund

Dortmund, 7. Juli 2009

Key words: bilingualism, bilingual teaching, business English, teaching
commercial subjects in English, English for Specific Purposes, English
for Business Purposes, subject-specific didactics of teaching
commercial subjects

ABSTRACT

The book compares bilingual and non-bilingual students of international
management and marketing at the business school HAK 1 Salzburg. The
business students whose performance was assessed were all bilingual
as they had studied English as a foreign language for 7 years prior to
this research. The term ‘bilingual’ in this book refers solely to the
students who attended the bilingual track or studied business subjects
in English, their first foreign language. On the other hand, non-bilingual
students studied the business subjects in German, their native
language. The purpose of this research was to find out in what ways
bilingual students were better than non-bilingual students. In other
words, the results would reveal the biggest differences and similarities
between the two groups of business students. For this purpose, the
communicative tests were designed to assess the students’ general
language proficiency, and their speaking and writing skills. In addition,
the students’ social background was assessed by using the
questionnaires designed for this study. The findings proved that
bilingual students excelled non-bilingual students in all tests. The
biggest differences between the two groups of students were found in
the use of grammar and vocabulary. The slightest difference between
them was revealed in the ‘fluency’ criterion of the speaking test.





2
In memory of my father
3Acknowledgements
I owe my advisor Prof. Dr. Günter Nold an immense debt of gratitude for his
patient guidance over the course of the past seven years. He provided expert
guidance, encouragement, and support through countless drafts and
revisions. He was always able to see the light at the end of the tunnel when,
to me, it was sometimes dark. His optimism was especially invaluable when I
was unable to find a school in Slovenia, where I had initially wanted to do my
research. He reassured me that I would eventually find the right school, and
he was right because a few weeks later I attended a congress in Graz, where
I received an offer to do my research in Salzburg.
Prof. Dr. Günter Nold’s eye for detail and desire for perfection made this a
much better work than it otherwise would have been. I find myself offering him
much deserved thanks.
I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kramer for being the second examiner of
my dissertation.
I am greatly indebted to the headmaster of the Bundeshandelsakademie 1
(HAK 1) Salzburg, Dir. Mag. Kurt Riedl, who allowed me to carry out my
research at the school in Salzburg. It was a lucky coincidence to find myself at
the Congress on Bilingual Teaching in Graz, Austria, where I announced my
wish to find a business school where I could test bilingual and non-bilingual
students. I will never forget the last day of that congress, when Dir. Kurt Riedl
introduced himself to me and told me that HAK 1 Salzburg was exactly what I
was looking for because the school is renowned for its focus on languages
and CLIL programmes. I would like to thank him and the teachers at HAK 1
Salzburg for being patient and understanding with my time-consuming data-
collection procedure.
I am also thankful to Dr. Iris-Aya Laemmerhirt for reading the entire
dissertation and giving very useful comments.
I will be forever thankful to Prof. Dr. Walter Grünzweig, my former teacher,
who helped me make contact with my advisor, Prof. Dr. Günter Nold. Dr.
Grünzweig made it possible to fulfil my great wish to pursue my doctoral
studies in the field that I enjoy so much. I thank him for believing in me.
Last but not least, my final words of gratitude go to my parents, who have
always unconditionally believed in me. Even though my father was unable to
live to experience my success, my mother has supported me tremendously,
both personally and on his behalf. I am grateful for the experience of
4conducting the research and writing this dissertation because it has made me
stronger as a person and even more determined and confident in my work.
During the past seven years I have grown both professionally and personally.





















5Contents
1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................12
2 BILINGUALISM.......................................................................................14
2.1 ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE BILINGUALISM .......................................14
2.2 MULTILINGUALISM ........................................................................15
2.3 ADVANTAGES BILINGUALS HAVE OVER MONOLINGUALS ......16
2.4 BILINGUAL EDUCATION................................................................17
2.4.1 TYPES OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION......................................18
2.4.2 RESEARCH ON CANADIAN IMMERSION PROGRAMMES...24
3 INTEGRATION OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE IN BILINGUAL
CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION..........................................27
3.1 EFFECTIVENESS AND BENEFITS OF CONTENT-BASED
LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING ................................................33
3.2 TEACHERS IN CONTENT-BASED PROGRAMMES AND
TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE COMMUNICATIVE
CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE CLASSROOM ........................................36
3.3 APPROACHES TO CONTENT-BASED COMMUNICATIVE
LANGUAGE TEACHING............................................................................39
3.3.1 PROJECT-BASED APPROACH ..............................................39
3.3.2 TASK-BASED APPROACH......................................................40
4 BUSINESS AS CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN ESP BUSINESS ENGLISH
COURSES .....................................................................................................45
4.1 BUSINESS ENGLISH LEARNERS..................................................51
4.1.1 JOB-EXPERIENCED LEARNERS ...........................................51
4.1.2 PRE-EXPERIENCE LEARNERS..............................................52
4.2 H TEACHERS .................................................53
4.3 IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING BUSINESS SKILLS IN BUSINESS
ENGLISH COURSES.................................................................................54
4.4 INPUT VERSUS OUTPUT IN BUSINESS ENGLISH ......................57
5 ASSESSING SECOND-LANGUAGE COMPETENCES WITH A FOCUS
ON GENERAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION SKILLS ..59
5.1 ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL L2 PROFICIENCY: C-TEST...........62
5.2 ENT OF PRODUCTION SKILLS ....................................66
5.2.1 ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCTION SKILLS: WRITING ...........71
5.2.2 ENT OF PRODUCTION SKILLS: SPEAKING.........77
6 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE (OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY).............85
7 INTRODUCTION TO THE EMPIRICAL STUDY.....................................86
7.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS...............................................................86
7.2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................87
7.3 SUBJECTS: BILINGUAL VERSUS NON-BILINGUAL STUDENTS
AT HAK 1 SALZBURG ...............................................................................88
67.4 DATA-COLLECTION PROCEDURE ...............................................89
7.5 BUSINESS CONTEXT OF COMMUNICATIVE TESTS USED IN
THIS STUDY (C-TEST, SPEAKING, WRITING) ........................................89
8 ANALYSIS OF GENERAL L2 PROFICIENCY: THE C-TEST.................91
8.1 CONSTRUCT DEFINITION.............................................................91
8.2 TEST CONTENT .............................................................................91
8.3 SUBJECTS......................................................................................91
8.4 DATA-COLLECTION CRITERIA .....................................................92
8.5 DATA-ELICITATION PROCEDURE................................................92
8.6 MY EXPECTATIONS.......................................................................92
8.7 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................92
8.7.1 GRADING PROCEDURE AND ENSURING RELIABILITY ......92
8.7.2 GENERAL C-TEST RESULTS.................................................93
8.7.2.1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: COMPARING AVERAGES USING
THE t-TEST.