Combinaison

The Doctoral School of English
Investigating Speaking Performance Deficiency among Learners of Business

English: The Case of Master Students at the Department
of Commercial Sciences, University of Oran
Mr Addi Lahcen
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister in

ESP: Business English
Board of Examiners
Chairperson : Dr. Benhattab Abdelkader. Lotfi University of Oran

Supervisor: Pr. Yacine Rachida University of Oran
Examiner: Dr. Moulfi Leila University of Oran
Examiner Dr. Djaileb Farida University of Oran, USTO
2014-2015
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
There are a few people I would like to thank for their help and tremendous
support to accomplish this modest work. I would like, first of all, to thank my
supervisor Pr. Yacine Rachida for being unfailingly inspirational and supportive
throughout the years.
I would like to thank also my co-supervisor Dr. Zitouni Mimouna who has
broadened the scope of my research so that I see research opportunities in every
direction. She has given me guidance in asking the important research questions and
constructing the research skeleton.
Dr. Djaileb for encouraging me and Dr. Benhattab Lotfi and Dr Moulfi Leila for
accepting to examine my research work.
Finally, I want to acknowledge any mistakes in this dissertation. Despite all my

efforts, it is only a ‘human work’. The faults that lingered in it are exclusively my
responsibility.
I
Dedication
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father Addi Hadj
To the memory of my grand mother
To my wonderful mother
To my wife and my little prince Mohamed El Amine
To my brothers and sisters
To the whole family
To my close friends
To my colleagues at the department of Commercial Sciences
II
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgments I
Dedication II
Contents III
Abstract VII
List of Abbreviations, Figures, and Tables VIII
General Introduction 01
Chapter One: Review of the Related Literature
1.1 Introduction 03
1.2 Surveying the Terrain of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 03
1.2 .1 Introduction 03
1.2 .2 What is ESP? 04
1.3 Business English 07
1.3.1 Introduction 07
1.3.2 ESP Divisions 08
1.3.3 Business English and ESP 09
1.3.4 Business English: A Definition 10
1.4. Business English and the Teaching/ Learning Paradigms 12
1.4.1Teaching Business English 12
1.4.2 Difficulties with Learning Business English? 13
1.5 The Speaking Skill in a Language Learning/Teaching context 14
1.5.1 Introduction 14
1.5.2 What is Speaking? 14
1.5.3 Differences between Speaking and Writing 15
1.5.4 The Speaking Skill in Language Teaching/Learning 17
1.5.5 The Speaking Skill in an EFL Teaching/ Learning Context 19
1.5.6 Difficulties with Teaching/Learning Speaking BE 21
III
Contents
1.5.6.1 Learners-Centered Difficulties 22

1.5.6.2 Teachers-Centered Difficulties 24
1.6 Chapter Summary 27
Chapter Two: Research Design and Data Collection
2.1 Introduction 28
2.2 The Research’s Skeleton 28
2.2.1 Background of the Study 28
2.2.2 Problem Statement 29
2.2.3 Research Questions (RQS) 30
2.2.4 Aims of the Research 31
2.2.5 Potential Relevance of the Research 31
2.2.6 Limitation of the Study 32
2.3 Issues in Corpus Design 32
2.3.1 A Twofold Research: What Data for Which Questions? 32
2.3.2 The Scientific Method 32
2.4 Case Research Methodology 33
2.4.1 Case Study 33
2.4.2 Research Instruments 34
2.4.3 Data Collection Procedure 35
2.4.3.1 The Actual Population 35
2.4.3.2 Timing for the Data collection Process 37
2.4.3.3 Consent from the Participants 37
2.4.4 The Questionnaire: 37
2.4.4.1 Administration of the Questionnaire 37
2.4.4.2 Reliability and Validity 38
2.4.4.3 The Questionnaire’s Parts 38
2.4.4.4 The Questionnaire Layout 39
2.4.4.5 Language of the Questionnaire: 40
2.4.4.6 Types of Questions 40
IV
Contents
2.4.4.7 Dynamics of the Questionnaire 41

2.4.4.8 Data processing 42
2.4.5 Constraints on the Data 42
Chapter Three: Findings and Recommendations

3.1 Introduction 44
3.2 Data Analysis and Discussion of the Findings 44
3.3. Non-Appreciated BE Speaking Practices 45
3.3. 1. Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors 45
3.3. 2. Difficulties Stemming from Non-Human factors 61
3.4. Most Appreciated BE Speaking Practices 65
3.5 Suggestions and Conclusions 69
3.5.1 Coping with Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors 70
3.5.1.1 Teachers’ Experience & Training 70
3.5.1.2 Focus on Teaching Oral BE 70
3.5.1.3 Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction 71
3.5.1.4 Teacher’ Talk Time 73
3.5.1.5 Teachers’ Input 74
3.5.1.6 Students’ Low Participation 76
3.5.2 Coping with Difficulties Stemming from Non-Human Factors 78
3.5.2.1 Teachers/Students’ Relationship 78
3.5.2.2 Teachers’ Communicative Competence 79
3.5.3 Participants’ suggestions for reducing the difficulties in learning BE 80
speaking
General Conclusion 82
Appendices 83
Appendix One: The Students’ Questionnaire 83
Appendix Two: The Teachers’ Questionnaire 86
References 88
V
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Business English is relatively a new subject in Algeria. This research investigates

the reality of the teaching/learning situation of business English at the department of
Commercial Sciences at University of Oran. Focus is put on investigating speaking
performance deficiency among learners of Business English: The Case of master students
at the Department of Commercial Sciences, University of Oran.
Specifically, this research includes exploring the potential sources causing both
teachers and learners difficulties in an oral Business English teaching/ learning context.
To achieve this, two questionnaires were administered to two groups- language teachers
and learners- regarding their views about the factors which may negatively affect the
speaking performance of language learners. Having analyzed the gathered data, it was
revealed that constraints are predominantly imposed by human and non-human factors.
At the end of the research, some suggestions are made with the hope of helping
Business English Language teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences to
improve the quality of their teaching of the speaking skill. Recommendations aimed also
at proposing to the learners a number of learning strategies to overcome Oral classroom’s
challenges.
VI
List of Abbreviations, Tables, Figures, and Graphs
List of Abbreviations
BE Business English
CLL Cooperative Language Learning
EAP English for Academic Purposes
EFL English as a Foreign language
EGP English for General Purposes
ELT English Language Teaching
EOP English for Occupational Purposes
ESP English for specific purposes/ English for Special Purposes
FL Foreign Language
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
Q… For example Q3: Question three
RQ1 Research Question One
RQ2 Research Question Two
RQs Research Questions
TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language
Ter Teacher
Ters Teachers
VII
List of Tables
Table 1.1 ESP in terms of ‘Absolute’ and ‘Variable’ Characteristics

Table 1.2 Differences between Speech and Writing
Table 2.1 The Actual Students’ Population
Table 2.2 The Actual Teachers’ Population

Table 2.3 The General Parts of the Students’ Questionnaire
Table 2.4 The General Parts of the Teachers’ Questionnaire
Table 3.1 Teachers and Students’ Inappropriate Practices
Table 3.2 Rubrics Findings’ Summary
VIII
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 ESP Historical Movements

Figure 1.2 ESP Divisions
Figure 1.3 Business English Fundamental Features
Figure 1.4 Reasons for EFL Learners’ Reticence / Burns & Joyce (1997)
Figure 1.5 Variables for EFL Learners’ Reticence / Ur (1997)

Figure 1.6 Teachers-Centered Difficulties
Figure 2.1 Open-ended Survey Questions
Figure 2.2 Nominal Measurement Scale with Dichotomous Categories
Figure 2.3 Ordinal Scales with Itemized Categories
Figure 3.1 Reasons behind Students' Non Participation in Talking Time during
Oral BE Courses
IX
List of Graphs
Graph 3.1 Experience with Teaching BE

Graph 3.2 BE Teachers’ Degrees
Graph 3.3 BE Received Training
Graph 3.4 Oral Skill as a Major Teaching Concern
Graph 3.5 Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Teachers’ Views)
Graph 3.6 Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Students’ Views)
Graph 3.7 Teachers’ reaction to students’ Mistakes (Students’ Views)
Graph 3.8 Teacher’ Talk Time
Graph 3.9 Teachers’ Input (Students’ Views)
Graph 3.10 Checking Understanding of Input during BE Course Time
Graph 3.11 Teachers’ Input (Teachers’ Views)
Graph 3.12 Students’ Low Participation (Teachers’ Views)
Graph 3.13 Students’ Low Participation (Students’ Views)
Graph 3.14 Teachers/Students’ Relationship (Students’ Views)
Graph 3.15 Teachers/Students’ Relationship (Teachers’ Views)
Graph 3.16 Teachers’ Communicative Competence (Students’ Views)
Graph 3.17 Teachers’ Communicative Competence (Teachers’ Views)
Graph 3.18 Students’ Interest in BE Speaking Activities
Graph 3.19 Students’ Interest in Individual versus Team work BE Speaking
activities
X
GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
General Introduction
It is self-evident to acknowledge that globalization, competitiveness and the

need to share knowledge and information have accelerated tremendously the
importance of oral communication skills. Accordingly, proficient speakers have
assurance and better chances to be desired at workplace especially in those jobs where
communicative-language related skills are relevant.
Speaking learning difficulties facing foreign-language students are a most

common fact of life. However, the nature of such difficulties and their effects on the
process of learning usually differ from one context to another.
Compared with reading, writing and listening, developing the ability to speak in a
foreign language and more particularly in a specialized field of that language is widely
considered a daunting task for most language learners and language teachers.
There has been interesting but limited empirical data researching learners'
experiences of speaking English as a foreign language (EFL) in specialized or specific
learning fields in spite of the fact that it is probably one of the striking points which could
be very promoting to English Foreign language teaching and learning.
This research work reports on the findings of a questionnaire survey of the

Business English speaking difficulties experienced by a young Algerian population
namely master students of Business English at the Department of commercial sciences,
University of Ahmed Benahmed, Oran 2.
Drawing on various theoretical perspectives and research, the students' perceived

difficulties are analysed in relation to speaking linguistic deficiencies, oral language
processes, and affordance of opportunities to use English for Business communication in
the students' INNER-and- OUTER contexts. Important implications of the results for
pedagogical practices that foster development of Business English speaking skills are
suggested.
1
This study consists of three chapters. Chapter one is an introduction to the thesis: the
review of related literature. It presents the definition of terms employed in the study and
some previous theoretical and practical research findings specific to the topic at stake.
Chapter two reports the methodology used in the research study, the significance of
the study, statement of the problem, research questions and the research skeleton.
Chapter three, on the other hand, presents the findings and discussion of relevant
difficulties in teaching the Business English speaking skill caused by human and non-
human factors.
The final part of chapter three is suggestion part of the study which concludes and
proposes some coping strategies and probable answers for teachers and students to
minimize these difficulties.
This work ends with a general conclusion which draws a general picture of the
research findings and the perspectives for future research.
It is hoped that this research work will be useful for teachers at the department of
Commercial Sciences in teaching the BE who wish about the WHAT of the problem and
the HOW to improve the BE speaking skill to their non-English speaking students.
2
Chapter One
REVIEW
OF THE
RELATED
LITERATURE
Chapter Review of the Related Literature
One
Chapter One: Review of the Related Literature
1.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a comprehensive overview of the literature pertaining to

previous outcomes in the field of teaching the speaking skill for Business English (BE)
language learners. Emphasis is put on doing some defining, some theorizing, and also
some explaining. The rationale behind this is to sustain a need to learn about concepts,
arguments and theories covered by specialists in the teaching of the speaking skill for BE
learners so that to build an adequate base from which to move through the rest of the
research.
Discussing aspects of Business English language teaching will hopefully be

relevant to the flow of discussion on investigating speaking performance deficiency
among Algerians Learners of Business English at the master level.
1.2 Surveying the Terrain of English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
1.2 .1 Introduction
To begin looking at Business English Language Teaching, one must look first at
the umbrella which envelops all English specific-based language teaching activities. In the
field of EFL, specific teaching activities are undertaken through a recently emerging type
of language teaching namely English for specific purposes (ESP).
Research on English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has been attracting a great deal of
attention in English language education over the past two decades. From the early 1960’s1,
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has grown to become one of the most prominent
areas of language education today. Its development is reflected in the increasing number
of students interested in undertaking research in ESP and in the number of ESP courses
1
Since 1960s, English for Specific Purpose (ESP) has been progressively growing and has eventually come
to play a major part in English Language Teaching (ELT) This is clearly reflected in Worldwide academic
settings where some universities started to offer MAs in ESP (e.g. University of Birmingham, and Aston
University in the UK) (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987).
3
One
offered for international students in English and non English -speaking countries
(Harding, 2007; Hyland, 2006; Orr, 2008).
The growth of ESP can also be observed from the publication of international
journals (e.g., English for Specific Purposes and The Asian ESP Journal) which are
dedicated to identifying aspects of ESP and encouraging and expanding the practice of
ESP worldwide2.
In Algeria, the growth of ESP in the past five years (specifically after 20043) has
been rapid and definite especially after its inclusion in most LMD programs taught in all
the English departments of Algerian Universities. The shift of the instructional focus from
English for General Purposes4 (EGP) to ESP aims to increase students’ motivation for
specific English learning and help students prepare for the demands of English in their
future careers.
1.2 .2 What is ESP?
With the growing demand for English courses tailored to specific needs, new ideas
began to emerge in the study of language. Traditionally speaking, research on the English
language focused on describing the rules of English usage. Yet, emerging studies shifted
attention away from defining the features of language usage to discovering the different
ways in which language is actually manifested in real communication contexts5. This
phenomenon, along with the new developments in educational psychology, contributed to
the rise of ESP.
English for Specific Purposes or English for Special Purposes (ESP) has developed
gradually and gained terrain among those interested in the activities of the discipline. In
2
In particular, Dudley-Evans and St. John’s (1998) theories on the “absolute characteristics” of ESP can
help provide a rationale for the rapid growth of ESP worldwide. The “absolute characteristics” illustrate
that an ESP approach concerns not only learners’ language issues, but also the design of the methodology
and activities related to students’ disciplines. Most importantly, ESP views students’ needs as the first
priority.
3
2004: Implementation of the LMD system of Algeria.
4
The question that is discussed permanently, among the scholarly community, reflects on the difference
between EGP and ESP. On the issues [to what extent EGP is different from ESP], Hutchinson & Waters
argues (1987:18-19): “In theory, nothing, in practice, a great deal”.
5
See Widdowson (1978).
4
One
the following section, we will highlight a number of definitions as to what is ESP and how
ESP is different from EGP.
Tracing the historical background of ESP, Hutchinson & Waters (1987) identifies
three main movements contributing to the emergence of all ESP:
• the demands of a “brave new world,”

(1)
• a revolution in linguistics, and

(2)
(3)
• an increased focus on the learner .
Figure 1.1: ESP Historical Movements (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987)
Wright (1992:03) defines the concept of English for Specific Purposes as follows:
“ESP is, basically, language learning which has its focus on

all aspects of language pertaining to a particular field of
human activity, while taking into account the time constraints
imposed by learners”.
Orr (1998) goes further on clarifying the line of demarcation between ESP and
EGP stating that:
“English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is research and

instruction that builds on EGP and is designed to prepare
students or working adults for the English used in specific
disciplines, vocations, or professions to accomplish specific
purposes”
5
One
It has been argued that ESP is associated with mature learners by and large,
because it has a strong relationship with specialization in different fields of concern.
Dudley – Evans, (1998), coeditor of the ESP Journal, proposes a comprehensive definition
of ESP in terms of ‘absolute’ and ‘variable’ characteristics, here is Dudley – Evans’s
definition summarized in the following table:
Absolute ESP is defined to meet specific needs of the learners

Characteristics
ESP makes use of underlying methodology and activities of the
discipline it serves
ESP is centered on the language appropriate to these activities in terms

of grammar, lexis, register, study skills, discourse and genre.
Variable ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines

Characteristics
ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology

from that of General English
ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level

institution or in a professional work situation. It could, however, be for
learners at secondary school level
. ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students
Most ESP courses assume some basic knowledge of the language

systems
Table 1.1: ESP in terms of ‘Absolute’ and ‘Variable’ Characteristics

(Evans, 1998)
Hutchinson & Waters, (1987) defines also ESP in terms of a methodology which
has widely spread after World War II at the time when English language has globally
spread and became the primary means of international communications in science,
business, education, and medicine. It is thanks to this new methodology that English has
6
One
become a global channel for communication and is now the main language of most print:
specialised and non-specialised publications6.
Although ESP is a controversial issue7, there is much misinterpretation concerning

the exact definition of ESP. In fact, there is a hot debate whether or not English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) could be considered part of ESP in general. Some scholars
described ESP as simply being the teaching of English for any purpose that could be
specified.
Mackay & Mountford (1978: 2) view ESP an oriented domain towards the learners
needs8. They define ESP as the teaching of English for a “clearly utilitarian purpose”.
The purpose they refer to is defined by the needs of the learners, which could be
academic, occupational, or scientific. These needs in turn determine the content of the
ESP curriculum to be taught and learnt.
Mackay & Mountford also defined ESP and the “special language” that takes
place in specific settings by certain participants. They claimed that those participants are
usually matures. They focused on adults because adults are usually “highly conscious” of
the reasons to achieve English proficiency in the very field of their specialization.
Inevitably, adults make use of the specialized language in authentic situations, because the
activities of their specialization compelled to use the appropriate ESP.
1.3 Business English
1.3.1 Introduction
Business English is a widely used term among practioners than theorists or

language researchers. Many would use the term to refer to courses offered by universities,
6
More than two-thirds of the world's professionals and scientists read in English; about eighty per cent of
online information is in English; and about eighty per cent of the approximately 40 million of internet users
communicate in English (Crystal, 1995; Graddol, 1997).
7
Defining ESP has proven to be so problematic. For those researchers who are producing a simple and
straightforward definition of ESP, the task is not that easy (Strevens, 1987: 109)
8
In terms of ESP's main characteristics, there is, however, general consensus among ESP researchers that
the learners' needs in ESP is paramount and it has been the driving force in any ESP course design since the
emergence of ESP courses in the 1960s. (See ,for example, Strevens, 1988 ; Evans and St John,1998 )
7
One
colleges, institutions and schools to students interested in proficiency and mastery in

business English.
Yet, despite the enormous interest, little has been produced on the subject matter.
Picket (1986: 12) wrote that “there is no point in…in pretending that Business English can
neatly be categorized. It will always consist of what thousands of teachers are actually
teaching”. In the coming part, we will shed the light on business English as a core
component of this research’s perspectives.
1.3.2 ESP Divisions
Context is central in ESP. In fact, ESP activities have to be presented by

considering real or authentic context parameters. According to Hutchinson & Waters
(1987) there exists a crucial point which has to be taken into consideration in teaching
ESP is to use authentic materials which will induce learners to acquire and develop
relevant information and strategies for their jobs.
It is because of the relevance of context in an ESP teaching learning situation, ESP

researchers9 opted for a division of the field as exemplified in the following figure:
EAP ESP EOP
Figure 1.2: ESP Divisions (Munby, 1978)
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is divided into English for Occupational
Purposes (EOP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP)10. Objectives for both ESP
9
See, for example, Flanegin & Rudd, 2000; Goffman, 1979; Pakir, 1999, Puvenesvary, 2003…etc.
10
Called also English for General Purpses (EGP) by Orr (1998).
8
One
divisions are to equip the learners with relevant tools and strategies to be able to
communicate, read, and write better so they can perform in their ESP Worlds,
appropriately and successfully.
EAP, on the one hand, is a kind of courses designed to help the learners to cope
with their intended courses so as to be more effective in their everyday lives. Orr (1998)
sates that:
“English for General Purposes (EGP) is essentially the English

language education in junior and senior high schools. Students
are introduced to the sounds and symbols of English, as well as
to the lexical/grammatical/rhetorical elements that compose
spoken and written discourse … University instruction that
introduces students to common features of academic discourse
in the sciences or humanities, frequently called English for
Academic Purposes (EAP), is equally ESP.”
EOP, on the other hand, is “…where the participant needs English to perform all
or part of his occupational duties”11. We may identify different types of EOP including
vocational English (e.g. English for tourism, aviation, and nursing), professional English
(e.g. English for doctors, lawyers), and business English which is at the heart of this study.
1.3.3 Business English and ESP
Business English is one of the specific areas of EOP12 which represents one of the
major divisions of ESP. BE must be seen in the overall context of ESP as it shares many
of its specificities in terms of needs analysis, syllabus design, course design, and materials
selection and development. However, Ellis and Johnson (2002) state:
11
Munby (1978:55)
12
Several studies (Flanegin and Rudd, 2000; Goffman, 1979; Pakir, 1999, Puvenesvary, 2003) have been
conducted on the importance of English in the occupational fields. Flanegin and Rudd (2000) discuss the
need and importance of English skills in all professions. In addition, they emphasize on the importance of
communication skills in the business and management fields by suggesting some solutions to enable
students to be good communicators in business majors. Goffman (1979) indicates that business negotiations
are carried out and letters are usually written in English. This sometimes discomforts those whose first
language is not English.
9
One
‘Business English differs from other varieties of ESP in that it is

often a mix of specific content (relating to a particular job area
or industry), and general content (relating to general ability to
communicate more effectively, especially in the business
situations’
At present, BE is highly recognized among the scholarly community as one of the

most distinct and popular disciplines. Statistics shows that more than 900 universities
worldwide offer ESP and BE.
Therefore, in line with the growing popularity of BE, it is of great significance to

study on how to promote BE teaching and learning in Algeria and elsewhere.
1.3.4 Business English: A Definition
Business English remains a little researched and ill-defined area of ESP. For us, to
chose one definition for BE is a tough mission because of the diversity of views. Some
consider it as a register; others define it as a linguistic need to meet the challenges of
business communication. Yet, Most if not all, share the point that the general
understanding of Business English is based on a number of characteristics. The Following
could be summarized as the fundamental features of BE:
10
One
Purposefulness
General Specific
BE
Content Content
Economy
Social
&
Dimensions
Clarity
Figure 1.3: Business English Fundamental Features13
• Purposefulness14 : : interactions in a business setting have a sense of purpose that

is the context of all business communication;
• Economy & Clarity: Business communication requires language to be clear,
economical and well-organized because long and ambiguous messages involve
greater costs;
• Specific Content: Each BE content is specific and tailored to meet the learners’
business English language needs and objectives;
• General Content15: Based on the learners’ specific BE needs, BE syllabus
designers include general or basic English content as part of the reinforcement
activities administered to sustain a need for proper everyday communication skills
among BE learners ;
13
See Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Donna, 2000; Edwards, 2000; Hemais, 2001; Charteris-Black & Ennis, 2001;
Fuertes-Olivera & PizarroSánchez, 2002; Fuertes-Olivera & Gómez Martínez, 2004.
14
Widdowson (1983:25-26) states: “Purpose in ESP means practical use to which the language will be put
in achieving occupational and academic aims”.
15
Ellis and Johnson (2002: 10) state: “Business English differs from other varieties of ESP in that it is often
a mix of specific content (relating to a particular job area or industry), and general content (relating to
general ability to communicate more effectively, especially in the business situations”
11
One
• Social Dimensions: in the business world, communication is always influenced by

the social context in which it takes place. Social skills of business people are
needed to develop contacts with people for business objectives.
It may be argued that BE characteristics should be incorporated in any course or

syllabus design to achieve competency. Business English should also be acknowledged as
a major actor in the process of promoting foreign investments especially in countries
where English is not the first language.
In the next section, we will try to shed the light on Business English language
teaching worldwide and in Algeria.
1.4. Business English and the Teaching/ Learning Paradigms
1.4.1Teaching Business English
With the accelerating rate of globalization, business exchanges are carried out
across the borders, as a result there is a growing demand for talented professionals both in
English and in Business English. We can see that, at present, BE courses are offered by
many language schools and Universities in the aim of meeting the need for the
professional market.
Research delineating differences between Business English teaching and General

English teaching demonstrates that Business English is different from General English at
least in such aspects as in the role of the teacher, in course design, in teaching models,
etc., thus different teaching methods should be applied in order to realize expected
teaching goals of business courses.
There have been many developments in the ways in which teachers and course
designers look at Business English. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, special vocabulary
was considered as what distinguishes Business English (BE) from General English (GE).
A second approach placed a greater emphasis on training “the skills of communication in
English speaking, writing, listening and reading within a business context”. In the mid-
1970s and 1980s, following the trends in GE, BE teaching began to focus more and more
12
One
on functional areas-formulaic language for recommending, giving opinions, showing

agreement, and so on. During the 1980s the development of company training programs
began to provide employees with opportunities to attend courses in presentation
techniques, negotiating, and effective meetings skills, which led to the publication of
books and materials on business skills.
Therefore, in line with the growing popularity of BE, it is of great significance to

question learners’ difficulties so that to join both the teachers’ potential to the learners’
expectations in an attempt to idealize a BE teaching learning situation.
1.4.2 Difficulties with Learning Business English?
Some research has been considering the difficulties and problems learners face in
the course of their learning of Business English, as well as about the sources of such
constraints and the ensuing detrimental effects on their communicative competence.
Many would agree that difficulties in learning Business English, in a country where
English is taught as a foreign language like Algeria, are to some extent ascribed, partially
or completely, to problems in learning English tout court rather than the English of a
particular specialty (Business English in this case).
In Difficulties for learners- an online article - the writer explains that difficulties
learners encounter while learning English as a foreign language or making use of it for
communicative purposes emanate from the extent to which their native language differs
from English. This implies that such difficulties may be more serious for certain learners,
but may be less for others. For instance, an Algerian learner may face many more
difficulties than a German learner. Generally speaking, this is due to the fact that Arabic is
much more different from English than German in many aspects.
In this Literature Review Chapter, we chose to focus on only one area that is
speaking deficiency performance among learners of Business English which is at the heart
of the present work’s research question.
13
One
1.5 The Speaking Skill in a Language Learning/Teaching context
1.5.1 Introduction
As a starting point, we will present some literature relevant to discuss principles and
aspects of the speaking skill in an EFL and BE contexts but emphasis will be put
particularly on and the BE context. The aim is to gain an overall understanding of what is
meant by “SPEAK”, and how to learn and develop this skill.
Speaking has been neglected in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) for
many years and remained, for most of its history, a minor occupation. This is in part
because almost all human beings grow up speaking their First Language (L1) and
sometimes their second language (L2), therefore, speaking their foreign language (FL) has
to be learned.
In this respect, to learn how to speak correctly and to be an effective speaker in a

foreign language is one of the most important objectives for both teachers and learners of
foreign languages, especially at university level. Students’ poor performances in speaking
have become the core problem which needs an urgent remedy.
1.5.2 What is Speaking?
Hedge (2000:261) defines speaking as: “A skill by which they (people) are judged
while first impressions are being formed”. In its simplest form, speaking may be defined
as just reproducing sounds’ combinations which have been already heard or read.
Speaking can be an individual, a personnel, and social endeavor as reported by Miller
(2001)16.
Speaking becomes more complicated when it involves producing meaningful

segments to carry a message in a particular language. Widdowson (2001: 62) defines
speaking as “the production of sentences as instances of usages”.
16
Cited in Richards & Renanya (2003:25).
14
One
Many would agree that speaking can be viewed as a result of complex processes and
the final product is the result of various operations and strategies. Speaking cannot be
achieved if there is no coherence between the words or the sentences which are arranged
and uttered in a particular order and linked together in certain ways that hold a meaning.
As mentioned earlier, speaking is referred to as a language skill. Language skills are

classified into two main categories: the productive skills (speaking and writing) and the
receptive skills (reading and listening). Listening and speaking are naturally acquired,
while reading and writing must be learned at school and university17. Moreover, even if
writing and speaking are belonging to the same category, they are sharply different as
Harmer (2007a: 246) explains: “The productive skills of writing and speaking are different
in many ways”. In what follows a brief discussion on the difference between speaking and
writing.
1.5.3 Differences between Speaking and Writing
There certainly are many differences between speech and writing as two forms of
human communication. Relying on Raimes (1983), we state below a number of these
differences.
 Speech is universal. Everybody can speak, but not everybody can write. For
example, illiterate people can communicate orally, but they cannot do so in
writing. Yet, it is worthy of note, in this context, that not all languages have a
written form.
 Speakers use their voices, intonation, tone, pauses, body movements, and facial
expressions to communicate ideas, whereas writers rely on the scripted words on a
page or screen, and use punctuation marks for the same purpose.
 Speaking can be spontaneous and unplanned. Most writing, however, is planned. It
takes time that is why we can go back to what we have written, and make various
changes if we need to.
17
This is called literacy, i.e., the ability to read and write.
15
One
 Speech is usually characterized by informality and redundancy. When we speak to

someone and want them to understand better, we often use expressions like this
means, by this I‟d like to say, etc. Writing, however, is normally marked by
formality and compactness.
 A speaker talks to a listener who is present while the speech is taking place, and
who usually makes prompt responses, but a writer addresses a reader who is not
around, and may not be known to him or her, and whose reaction either takes place
at a later time or will not occur at all.
 Speakers often use simple sentences overlinked by and and but, and probably
including er and eh repeated many times. But, writers usually employ long
complex sentences connected with pro-forms, such as who, which, so, there, and
other linkers, such as nevertheless, moreover, etc.
Harris (1993), on his turn, distinguishes between a speaker and a writer as follows:
Speakers Writers
1. Can refer to people, objects, and so on in 1. Do not share an immediate environment
the shared environment by pointing with with their readers and have to make explicit
gestures or by using pointing words. references to people and objects.
2. Can check whether they are being 2. Have no means of knowing once the text
understood by looking at the speaker's is finished whether the readers will
expression, by asking, or by being directly understand the message they need to
prompted. anticipate potential misunderstandings and
3. In conversations (including telephone appropriate levels of shared knowledge.
conversations) speakers are encouraged by 3. Have to find ways of motivating
listener's markers, such as "mm" and in live themselves to continue creating a text.
conversations and gestures. 4. Have to plan in order to achieve both a
4. Can backtrack and fill in information sequence and a selection that will lead to
that may have been omitted precise effective communication.
sequence is not a prerequisite effective
communication.
Table 1.2: Differences between Speech and Writing (Harris, 1993: 4)
16
One
Finegan (1994:120) had his own ways at looking to the differences between speech
and writing, he suggests that:
“There are four main differences between writing and speaking:

1- Speaking has such channels as intonation, voice pitch, and
gestures to convey information, whereas writing has only words
and syntax.2- Writing requires more time than speaking in
terms of planning.3- Speakers and addresses are often face-to-
face while writers and readers are not. 4- Speaking tends to
rely on the context of the interaction more than writing.”
Finegan (1994) own vision about the difference between speaking and writing is
developed in terms of their forms and the processes that writers and speakers go through
to produce language. Accordingly, speech forms and processes should be developed in all
instances of oral language production by speakers of L1, L2 and more particularly FL.
All these differences lead us to make an obvious deduction that may be reckoned
as the principal difference between writing and speaking, especially in the field of
language learning: writing either in one‘s mother tongue or in a foreign language is
learned only through formal teaching, whereas spoken language can be acquired outside
the academic realm.
1.5.4 The Speaking Skill in Language Teaching/Learning
In fact, speaking has often been underestimated18 in language teaching, and in

foreign language teaching particularly. In terms of complexity and difficulty, many
surveys proved that language production is difficult. Harmer (2007b, p. 251) points out
that “there are a number of reasons why students find language production difficult”.
The process of learning how to produce an utterance is, in itself, an act of

discovery. Students must master the sound system of language, its grammatical structure,
and select the appropriate vocabulary (mechanisms of speaking) related to the subject
18
The skill of speaking has just been recently considered by many methodologists a priority in language
teaching. Of all the four skills, Ur (1997: 120) concludes, speaking seems intuitively the most important.
17
One
matter. Yet, some learners spend their time memorizing hundreds of words and many
grammar rules, but they still cannot speak properly. Many of them would fail because
speaking is a complex and ever changing process.
Brown (1994) argues that, inside language teaching classrooms, speaking and
listening are the most often used skills. In natural environments, the roles of speakers and
listeners are interchanged; information gaps between them are created and then closed
with the effort from both sides. However, in organized classrooms’ oral practices, teachers
should create as much information gap as possible and teachers’ vital duty is to encourage
communication which yields information gaps. Teachers should also bear in mind the
differences between real-life oral communication and classroom oral communication.
As for Pattison (1987), classroom oral practices have five characteristics: (1) the
content or topic is predictable and decided by teachers, books, tapes, etc; (2) learners’
aims in speaking are to practice speaking, to follow teachers’ instructions and to get good
marks; (3) learners’ extrinsic motivation is satisfied; (4) participants are often a large
group; (5) language from teachers or tapes is closely adapted to learners’ level.
Nunan (1989), on the other hand, suggests a list of relevant characteristics typical
to a well organised real-life oral communication. He suggests: (1) comprehensible
pronunciation of the target language; (2) good use of stress, rhythm, intonation patterns;
(3) fluency; (4) good transactional and interpersonal skills; (5) skills in taking short and
long speaking in turns; (6) skills in the management of interactions; (7) skills in
negotiating meaning; (8) conversational listening skills; (9) skills in knowing about and
negotiating purposes for the conversation; (10) using appropriate conversational
formulae and filters.
Most language learners are primarily interested in learning to speak. Nunan (1989)
asserts that the ability to operate in a second language can be actually equated to the
ability to speak that language. Hedge (2000: 261) chooses to formulate the reasons for
learning to speak as follows:
18
One
“Learners may need the skill to establish and maintain

relationships, to negotiate, to influence people. Speaking is the
skill by which learners are assessed when the first impression is
formed”
As it was stated in the last section, speaking has often been underestimated. Less
importance is presumably seen in research on the speaking skill because of the position
ascribed to this skill in different teaching approaches. We can significantly notice that
there is a striking contrast between the recent views on speaking and the ancient views
held mainly by advocates of the grammar-translation or the audio-lingual method. Mackey
(2002: 5) argues:
“Oral expression involves not only [….] the use of the right
sounds in the right patterns of rhythm and intonation, but also
the choice of words and inflections in the right order to convey
the right meaning”
In the ancient approaches- as illustrated by Mackey’s words- the skill of speaking

was rarely emphasized in connection to its purpose, i.e. the ability to use a language in
real-life situations. Rather, emphasis is put on the formal part, i.e. the correct sounds, the
correct choice of words and inflections etc., led to the accuracy oriented practice. Types of
activities such as oral drills, model dialogue practice and pattern practice (“The Audio-
lingual method”) were widely used in teaching speaking. The result was that, although
learners knew the patterns and memorized the rules, they were not able to use their
knowledge in practice. They were not capable of exploiting the rules and patterns in real
interaction.
1.5.5 The Speaking Skill in an EFL Teaching/ Learning Context
Nunan (1999: 71) considers that:
“Language is arguably the defining characteristic of the human

species and knowledge of language in general, as well as ability
to use one’s first and, at least one other language, should be one
of the defining characteristics of the educated individual”
19
One
It is not surprising to say that the ability to speak at least one foreign language is a
necessity especially in a globalised world. Communication among people has expanded
way beyond their local speech communities (Ellis, 1997).
Today, learning how to speak the Lingua Franca has become a means of keeping up
with the pace of the rapidly changing world. Nowadays, Speaking English forms a
permanent part of all types of curriculum-from primary schools to universities- and
employment instances’ conditions for recruitment19 including companies and multinational
organisations where a person, in most cases, can hardly integrate these communities of
practice without this ability. The demands of the contemporary society together with the
position of English as an international language may present a reason for learning this
language in particular. Objectively, the increasing demand for learning a foreign language,
especially English in non-English speaking countries is an evident tendency in the global
integration along with non-English speaking countries’ policy of innovation,
industrialization and modernization.
However, most English language teachers and learners cannot deny that to learn
speaking English has nothing to do with learning writing, reading or listening. It involves,
not only, learning how to produce the English speech sounds and sound patterns, how to
use word and sentence stress, intonation patterns and the rhythm of the language, how to
select appropriate utterances according to the proper social setting, audience and subject
matter, how to organize ideas in a meaningful and logical sequence, how to use language
as a means of expressing values and judgments, and how to use it quickly and confidently
with few unnatural pauses to achieve fluency, but also to be able use social and pragmatic
rules to perform appropriate structures of the English language20.
19
Oral communication skills are central for undergraduate Business students if they are not to be
disadvantaged in the workplace (Crossling & Ward, 2002).
20
Bygate, (1987:5) argues : “Speaking involves two types of skills – basic, lower level motor-perceptive
skills of producing right sounds and using accurate grammatical structures, and communicative strategies
such as what and how to get the meaning across” .
See Lazarton (2001) and Martinez-Flor, Uso-Juan & Alcon-Soler (2006).
20
One
1.5.6 Difficulties with Teaching/Learning Speaking BE
Students of Business English as well as EFL learners need to develop the following
skills:
“Producing connected speech, the ability to interact, talking

round gaps in their knowledge, speaking in a range of contexts,
and balancing accuracy and fluency“
(Knight and Lindsay, 2006: 60).
Like any other students interested in speaking English properly, Learners of

Business English need to learn how to engage in conversations with other speakers,
respond appropriately and use vocabulary and phrases of everyday/Business English for
situations. They should know, for example, how to greet properly, what language to use in
job interviews, what phrases are needed to answer phone calls and requests in a job
dinner. According to Knight & Lindsay (2006), speakers of BE needs to cover a wide
range of general21 and specific contexts22 : They need to practice with strangers, at work,
in a restaurant, in a grocery…etc.
It seems that for a non-native speaker who desire to learn speaking English
(whether Business English or English as a Foreign Language) and knows that in his/her
environment English is not practiced the task is problematic in the sense that many
BE/EFL learners transfer their speaking abilities and strategies, whether good or deficient,
from their L1 to their FL. Yet, just as the rules for driving differ from one country to
another, the conventions for speaking may change from one language to another23.
In any ways, not everyone is a naturally gifted speaker. Speaking is a skill that can
be learned, practiced, and mastered. The nature of speaking, in a foreign speaking
environment, can be linked to the nature of speakers themselves such as students or
people in general.
21
Here we refer to General and every day English.
22
Here we refer to Business English.
23
Harmer (2001:246) states: “Speaking is a productive skill aiming at communication. For communication
in a foreign language to be successful, a speaker needs to be familiar with linguistic and cultural
backgrounds that are shared by native speakers and has to obey certain rules and conventions that are not
written down anywhere, nor are easy to define”.
21
One
Because research on BE teaching/learning speaking problems is limited, we choose

to focus our attention on EFL teaching/learning speaking problems to approximate some
truth about the research in question.
1.5.6.1 Learners-Centered Difficulties
There exist many student-related problems in teaching the speaking skill in EFL
classes. Many studies into speaking EFL report on frequent cases of Reticence24 and
anxiety in EFL learning. Learners demonstrate unwillingness to speak and unpreparation
to get into the process. It has been found that many EFL learners’ especially non-native
learners of the target language, are passive in oral language classrooms and choose not to
use the target language especially when responding to teachers25 . Their reluctance and
reticence in English oral classes challenge any teacher and any teaching situation.
In fact, reticence research in foreign language learning has captured the attention of
language theorists and many educators in the last years (Burns & Joyce, 1997; MacIntyre
& Charos, 1996; MacIntyre et al., 2001; Tsui, 1996).
Burns & Joyce (1997) questioned reasons for EFL learners’ reticence. They
enumerated three groups of variables that encompass the following:
24
Horwitz et al., (1986); MacIntyre & Gadner, (1989); Burns & Joyce, (1997); MacIntyre & Charos,
(1996); MacIntyre et al., (2001) and Tsui, (1996) assume that reticence is when people speak in a second or
foreign language, they become more apprehensive and tense and thus more unwilling to participate in
conversation.
25
See Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Jackson, 1999, 2001, 2002; Li, 1998; Sato, 1990; Tsui, 1996; Zou, 2004.
22
One
CULTURAL
FACTORS
LINGUISTIC
FACTORS
AFFECTIVE
FACTORS
RETICENCE
Figure 1.4: Reasons for EFL Learners’ Reticence

Burns & Joyce (1997)
 Cultural Factors: Burns & Joyce (1997) explain that cultural factors follow from
students’ prior learning experiences and consequently from the expectations that
are formed on their basis.
 Linguistic Factors: Burns & Joyce (1997) consider that linguistic factors refer to
low English proficiency. Limiting speaking for EFL learners could be difficulties
in the phonetics and phonology of the target language, poor knowledge of
grammatical patterns or low awareness of cultural background and social
conventions that are necessary for processing meaning in the target language.
 Affective Factors: Burns & Joyce (1997) refer to personal traits (i.e., reservedness,
shyness, introvertedness), low motivation level, individual differences (i.e., self-
esteem and/or self-perception) timidity or anxiety in class, negative social
experiences, and culture shock as affective factors.
23
One
Ur (1997) has also shown interest in speaking problems among learners of EFL.
She was preoccupied with difficulties she has encountered in getting her learners to speak
in the class. Her variables correspond to the following:
No Ideas to Problems of
Mother Tongue Inhibition
Share Participation
Figure 1.5: Variables for EFL Learners’ Reticence

Ur (1997)
All these findings about reticence and many others26 reveal that reticence is a
widely-observed phenomenon in EFL classrooms and that various factors contribute to
student reluctance. In fact, problems in the speaking classroom should be viewed from
different angles. It is high time to consider research on teachers and context-centered
variables that participate to bad achievement among EFL learners of the speaking skill.
1.5.6.2 Teachers-Centered Difficulties
Any learning context is bound tightly to the teaching one27. The teaching plans and
objectives of any EFL Oral classroom are successfully achieved if the teacher demonstrates
appropriate pedagogical practices.
To implement the various teaching plans and to attain the different teaching goals
appropriately, researchers discussed to what extent the relationship between teacher talk
and EFL Oral language learning environment affect students ‘oral performance.
26
See MacIntyre & Charos, (1996); MacIntyre et al., (2001) and Tsui, (1996).
27
There is no learning without teaching.
24
One
Teacher
Evaluation --
& Learner
Correction relationship
Amount
&
Time
Teacher of
Talk Talk
Figure 1.6: Teachers-Centered Difficulties

(Brown, 2002; Harmer, 2000; Ur, 2000; Cook, 2000; Zhao Xiaohong, 1998;
Tsui, 1996; Nunan, 1991; Hakansson, 1986)
Nunan (1991: 07) points out:
“Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the

organization of the classroom but also for the processes of
acquisition. It is important for the organization and
management of the classroom because it is through language that
teachers either succeed or fail in implementing their teaching
plans. In terms of acquisition, teacher talk is important because
it is probably the major source of comprehensible target
language input the learner is likely to receive”.
Hakansson (1986), on the same line of thought, joins Nunan’s vision relating the
teacher talk to success at both organisation and acquisition levels. Additionally, He
regards the amount and type of teacher talk as a predominant factor of success or failure in
an EFL oral teaching learning situation.
This can be better understood in an EFL oral classroom situation where both teachers
and learners participate actively in language classes activities. The teachers’ mission is, not
25
One
only, to provide enough English language input but also to offer opportunities for learners to
practice the target language. So the management of teacher talk time is an important issue to
be questioned: whether or not the amount of teacher talk influences learners’ foreign language
learning28. Cook (2000) and Zhao Xiaohong (1998), for example, stipulate that teachers tend to
do most of the classroom talk. Teacher talk makes up over 70 percent of the total talk. Harmer
(2000) points out that the best lessons are ones where student talk is maximized i.e. where
students are given multiple opportunities to use the language they are learning.
Getting students to talk is a challenging task for any teacher. A big amount of student
talk induces, on the part of the student, the production of many mistakes. Inevitably, students
would make a lot of mistakes in the process of learning and speaking a foreign language.
Brown (2002: 205) argues:
“A learner’s errors... are significant in (that) they provide to the

researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what
strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery
of the language”
In brown’s words, mistakes are good means a teacher can use to identify What, How
and When to correct students. Evaluation and correction helps students to better their
understanding and performance. Yet, it is very crucial to consider how teachers correct and
evaluate students’ oral performance. Ur (2000) points out the relevance of questioning
how teacher correction is expressed: gently or assertively supportively or as a
condemnation, tactfully or rudely.
One of the striking teacher-centred difficulties experienced in an oral EFL

environment would be the relationship between the teacher and the learner. A principal
prerequisite variable for creating and maintaining a motivating learning atmosphere in
class is to setting a good relationship between the teacher and the learner.
Tsui (1996), Horwitz et al. (1991), Koch & Terrell (1991), Horwitz (1988),
investigated anxieties related to teacher-learner interactions and relationships. Most of
them, proposed some possible ways for an enjoyable oral learning environment, they
28
A great number of researchers have testified this: Legarreta, 1977; Hakansson, 1986; Chaudron, 1988; Nunan,
1991; Zhao Xiaohong, 1998; Harmer, 2000; Cook, 2000.
26
One
talked about possibilities for: (a) talking with students about their feelings and helping
them rationalize their anxiety about speaking; (b) talking to students outside the classroom
because some students may feel inhibited about discussing their feelings in front of their
classmates.
What has been advanced in the last section describes teacher-centered difficulties
which can be considered in an oral classroom. Yet, research on this question is not
exhausted; on the contrary, it needs to be developed further.
1.6 Chapter Summary
The purpose of this chapter is to give a theoretical background to this study. We

have tried to survey and review some major existing studies which are relevant to the
various themes of this work’s research questions. In sum, we can say that the factors
behind students’ poor performances are endless, but we have limited ourselves to the
major ones.
In the next Chapter (Chapter Two), we will provide an account of the research
questions, the motivation and also the significance of the research. This is done to help the
reader follow the different steps of the research with ease and be able to relate to the
rationale that lies behind each step. We will also outline methods of data collection and
analysis destined to best investigate key issues of the research questions.
27
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH
DESIGN
AND
DATA
COLLECTION
Chapter Research Design and Data Collection
Two
Chapter Two: Research Design and Data Collection
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reports the rationale behind this study and gives orientations about
WHAT is to be researched and HOW to be researched.
Chapter Two is structured as follows:

 The Research’s Skeleton: presents the research question, the aims and objectives,
as well as the significance of the present study.
 Issues in Corpus Design: outlines general issues related to corpus design and the
general plan for the research are exposed.
 Case Research Methodology- will delineate the research strategy and design
chosen to best achieve the objectives of this study.
2.2 The Research’s Skeleton
2.2.1 Background of the Study
Foreign-Language Teaching and Learning is a complex process especially when

referring to the speaking skill. Teachers usually follow a certain order: beginning with
reading, writing, listening, and then speaking. The speaking skill is, for most of the time,
placed at the end of the teacher’s priorities.
Speaking and learning to speak, in a non native context, has always been one of the
most complex language skills. It is not an easy task to achieve since it requires hard work,
lengthy steps, enough time, and more practice. Of course, this order may change
depending on the needs of the learners. It is obvious that mastering English as a foreign
language (EFL) requires mastering the four skills; and today, none of us would ignore
their importance in the educational system. Having poor performances in speaking is just
like what Nunan (2000: 04) describes in the following passage:
28
Two
“If you learn English but cannot speak it fluently, you are like a
blind being on the street. You [will] lose many precious
opportunities to enjoy the beauty of this world. You are kept
inside a dark box. But if you speak [English] well, you will
learn about culture, people and life. You feel your life colourful
and meaningful. You are not isolated.”
Many learners assume that the key to a good English oral production is mastering
the rules of grammar, but what does it mean to speak English fluently i.e. easily and
automatically? And how can we achieve native-like fluency in an ESP context? Many
would agree that to speak fluent English happens when the words come out of the
mouth—without translation and without hesitation. Sometimes this is called “thinking in
English”, but truly automatic speech is even faster than that-- there is no thinking. We do
not think about the language at all- we just speak as easily and effortlessly as we do with
our native language. It is in this context that the research question of the present study will
be developed.
2.2.2 Problem Statement
The actual problem was observed among first year master students of Business
English normally expected to already master both the grammatical rules and speaking
strategies of the English language; yet, it is not the case. We became aware of the
phenomenon during the first teaching course we had with them. It was obvious to identify
the very poor performance of the students at the speaking level.
In the Algerian context-at University level particularly, speaking in English unlike,

listening, and sometimes reading, is not practiced outside the class, so what is learned
inside the class is practiced inside and has little chance to be developed outside.
Time and practice are nearly neglected especially in the Department of commercial
sciences at University of Oran . Moreover, the complexity of the speaking skill led the
majority of the students to struggle when they need to speak or utter a sentence in English
and this has brought about poor speaking performance among them.
29
Two
In fact, investigating this issue stems from my personal motivation and a proper
interest in the field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and more
particularly in the teaching of Business English. I have been also given incentive for
action thanks to my own experience in teaching the four skills for master students for
more than 4 years where it is witnessed that the majority of EFL learners face problems
with the four skills but more specifically with the speaking skill.
1
My observations are also backed by other colleagues' point of view who have
been unsatisfied by the mediocre performances of our learners especially when dealing
with Business English contexts or repertoires. Teachers’ unsatisfaction is particularly
shown during exams’ sessions where First year Master students in the Department of
Commercial Sciences at University of Oran are not able to properly perform any speaking
assignment.
Accordingly, all what is mentioned above increased my interest in investigating

what is the secret behind learners' poor speaking performances and shedding the light on
the main factors that hamper students to speak properly in English.
2.2.3 Research Questions (RQS)
This work raises a practical and scholarly questions concerned with investigating
the question of speaking and oral proficiency’s deficiency in a business English teaching
environment among Algerians Master students.
On the basis of the above observations, this research work aims to contribute to
answering a ‘what’ and a ‘how’ questions2. The genesis of this research lies in two main
questions:
1
These are colleagues who work with me, in the same department.
2
“The next step in the research process [after observation] involves translating that research idea into an
answerable question” (Marczyk et al., 2005:7); Marczyk et al.,(2005:35) : further add “ Good research
problems must meet three criteria (see Kerlinger,1973). First, the research problem should describe the
relationship between two or more variables. Second, the research problem should take the form of a
question. Third, the research problem must be capable of being tested empirically (i.e., with data derived
from direct observation and experimentation).”
30
Two
RQ1: WHAT factors lie at the root of these learners’ unsatisfactory level of
proficiency in oral communication?
RQ2: HOW can we remedy to this? What courses of action can Algerian EFL
teachers take to help Algerian master students of Business English develop their oral
fluency in English?
2.2.4 Aims of the Research
The present study deals with the learners' poor achievements in oral products with
the purpose:
1. To identify some factors which markedly restrict the learners' ability to speak English
correctly when they reach the Master level.
2. To translate the research findings into suggestions and guidance.
2.2.5 Potential Relevance of the Research
Marczyk et al., (2005) argues:
“Engaging in research can be exciting and rewarding

endeavour. Through research, scientists attempt answer
age-old questions, acquire new knowledge, describe how
things work, and ultimately improve the way we all live.”
(Marczyk et al., 2005: 27)
The importance of this research lies in the fact that it is hopefully a tentative to
acquire new knowledge, describe how things work, and ultimately improve our
understanding of the phenomena as it represents an attempt to find about how to
maximize EFL learning through overcoming obstacles our students face during oral
communication in English/ Business English.
31
Two
2.2.6 Limitation of the Study
We are perfectly aware that there is an almost endless number of factors that affect
students’ achievements in speaking. These factors could be related to the program, the
methods, the techniques, the teacher, the learner, and others such as motivation, anxiety,
etc. However, we have deliberately limited our study to what we think are the main
factors that are related to both teachers and learners.
Our study concerns also a limited population, first year master students in one
university, and can; therefore, be generalized only if the same results are obtained by other
researchers conducted under the same circumstances and research protocol.
2.3 Issues in Corpus Design
2.3.1 A Twofold Research: What Data for Which Questions?
In defining the questions, aims and objectives which guide this piece of research,
we felt a necessity to use two different data sets. Firstly, data observing perception of the
English oral performance level (the aim is to investigate research question one). Secondly,
data observing perception of the constraints imposed during the teaching learning process
(the aim is to investigate research question one). Thirdly, data investigating courses of
action that may be proposed to help develop English oral competency (the aim is to
investigate research question two).
2.3.2 The Scientific Method
It is generally agreed that the scientific method3 is the basis for all scientific
investigation. The scientific method is best thought of as an approach which effectively
distinguishes science from science. It is based on the following:
3
“The development of the scientific method is usually credited to Roger Bacon, a philosopher and scientist
from 13th-century England; although some argue that the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei played an
important role in formulating the scientific method. Later contributions to the scientific method were made
by the philosophers Francis Bacon and René Descartes. ” (Marczyk et al.,2005: 5)
32
Two
“Although some disagreement exists regarding the exact

characteristics of the scientific method, most agree that it is
characterized by the following elements:
 Empirical approach
 Observations
 Questions
 Hypotheses
 Experiments
 Analyses
 Conclusions
 Replication (4)”
(Marczyk et al., 2005: 5)
In this study, the researcher believes that the scientific method will provide a set of
clear guidelines for collecting, evaluating and reporting information in the context of the
research study5.
2.4 Case Research Methodology
2.4.1 Case Study
For greater understanding of the speaking deficiencies in a business English

teaching learning situation undertaken in an Algerian University context, this study has
recourse to one of the major research approaches in social sciences6. Case studies research
methodology fits with this study theoretical positions that entail examination of
4
According to Marczyk et al., (2005:15-16): “One of the most important elements of the scientific method
is replication. Replication essentially means conducting the same research study a second time with
another group of participants to see whether the same results are obtained (see Kazdin, 1992; Shaughnessy
& Zechmeister, 1997)…The importance of replication in research cannot be overstated. Replication serves
several integral purposes, including establishing the reliability (i.e., consistency) of the research study’s
findings and determining whether the results can be obtained with a different group of participants. This
last point refers to whether the results of the original study are generalizable to other groups of research
participants.”
5
See Cozby, 1993.
6
There are other approaches in social sciences like experiments, histories, archival analysis, and surveys
(Yin,1994)
33
Two
phenomenon in natural settings. Sudweeks &Simoff (1998) regard case research approach
as:
“Research in which the researcher has direct contact with the

participants and the participants are the primary source of the
data. It follows, then, that the primary methods used in case
research are interviews and direct observations”
(Sudweeks &Simoff, 1998:35)
Additionally, Benbasat, Goldstein and Mead (1987) suggest that case research
approach could be useful when there is a lack of strong theoretical basis for the topic
investigated or when little is known about the phenomenon.
2.4.2 Research Instruments
According to Hamel et al., (2008):
“Vouloir sonder les jeunes qui évoluent aujourd’hui dans

l’orbite sociale requiert sans conteste l’utilisation de méthodes
propices à l’obtention de leur collaboration aux enquêtes. En
effet, à l’ère de l’individualisme en vigueur dans les sociétés
dites postmodernes, obtenir la participation de quiconque aux
recherches conduites … n’est pas une mince affaire, et ce, pour
diverses raisons. “
(Hamel et al., 2008: 01)
To collect the necessary information for this research, the researcher will make use
of two Questionnaires. We designed a student questionnaire and a teacher questionnaire
(see Appendix 01 & 2).
Before the actual questionnaire survey, a pilot survey was carried out in order to
eliminate poor design features, to determine the length of completion time, and to foresee
34
Two
possible problems that may occur in the data collection process of the Students’
Questionnaires. Gillham et al., (2001) explains:
“This [The pilot stage] is the first phase of questionnaire

development before you have an actual questionnaire to try out
…. Collecting and analyzing data at this stage can be time-
consuming and needs to be kept under control, but even on a
small scale can be an eye-opener”.
(Gillham, 2001:19)
The questionnaire was subject to two sets of revisions in the course of piloting,
resulting in the final version, as shown in appendix 01. We planned a self-administered
questionnaire.
Fundamentally, there are two types of questionnaire: self-administered and

interview-administered. A self-administered questionnaire is chosen for this study due to
time and financial restraints and because it can be completed by the participants on their
own without necessary intervention of the researcher.
2.4.3 Data Collection Procedure
2.4.3.1 The Actual Population
“One of the important tasks for a researcher is selecting settings and negotiating
access to the participants”7. The study population for RQ1 consists of first year Algerian
master students of Business English, who are studying and doing research at the
University of Oran8 - department of Commercial Sciences. The students’ questionnaire is
concerned with the analysis of the students’ different speaking performances.
For the Students’ Questionnaire, the researcher chose to work on the following:
7
Steyn &Vna Wyk (1999:38)
8
The participants were recruited on a voluntary basis from the University of Oran which is located in Oran
City and considered as one of the ‘best’ universities in the region.
35
Two
The Students’ Questionnaire
The population A selected sample9 of first year master students of business

English.
The setting University of Oran, Department of Commercial Sciences
Age 19 – 25
The questionnaire’s way A printed questionnaire
of administration
Number of participants 72 students 10
Table: 2.1: The Actual Students’ Population
The study population for RQ2 consists of teachers of First year master students of
Business English at the, Departments of Commercial Sciences, Economics and
Management.
For the teachers’ Questionnaire, the researcher chose to work on the following:
The Teachers’ Questionnaire
The population All teachers of first year master students of business English.
The setting University of Oran, Departments of Commercial Sciences,

Economics and Management
Age 23 – 45
The questionnaire’s way A printed questionnaire
of administration
Number of participants 11 teachers11
Table: 2.2: The Actual Teachers’ Population
9
Students with poor achievements in English oral production.
10
The process of data gathering ended up with a total of 72 students’ questionnaires out of the 90 expected
ones. Not all the participants, who offered consent and were present during the data collection process
(more than 100), have given back their questionnaires despite their consent and the fact that enough time
was reserved to this research step (many of the students proposed to take the questionnaires and bring them
before the end of the data collection process, few of them did.)
11
The process of data gathering ended up with a total of 11 teachers’ questionnaires out of the 11 expected
ones. All the teachers, who offered consent and were present during the data collection process have given
back their questionnaires.
36
Two
2.4.3.2 Timing for the Data collection Process
The data was collected from March 2012 until April 2012. In fact, it was important
to us to plan for the distribution timing of the questionnaire. The rationale behind this was
to target the period after the first semester examination so that to get the marks of the oral
exams. Filling in the questionnaire took, according to most students, an average of 10 up
to 15 minutes.
2.4.3.3 Consent from the Participants
It was also made clear – in the questionnaire’s information sheet- that participation
was on a voluntary basis; that respondents were free to pass over questions they did not
wish to answer; and that they may withdraw at any time and without giving a reason.
Completion and return of the questionnaires by voluntarily respondents was also taken as
informed consent.
2.4.4 The Questionnaire:
2.4.4.1 Administration of the Questionnaire
Douglas Harper has argued that the
“...new ethnography asks for a redefinition of the relationships

between the researcher and the subject. The ideal suggests
collaboration rather than a one-way-flow of information from
subject to researcher”12.
We decided to distribute the student’s questionnaire and provide its guidelines to

the subjects during the make –up exam sessions of the first semester. More than one
hundred students were present during these sessions which were held during the end of
March (before vacation) up to the beginning of April.
12
Harper (1998:35).
37
Two
This mode of administration was chosen for various reasons; including low cost in
terms of time and with the potential of reaching more participants than surveys conducted
in different settings.
2.4.4.2 Reliability and Validity
To guarantee the reliability of questionnaires13, they were administered to different

groups of first year master students of business English studying in the same department-
Commercial Sciences Department. The Teachers’ Questionnaires, on the other hand, were
also administered to a number of EFL teachers working in different departments, namely
Economic, Management and Commercial Sciences Departments.
To ensure the validity of the questionnaires14, the questions were well prepared
and revised before distributing the questionnaires. Questionnaires were also piloted before
administration.
2.4.4.3 The Questionnaire’s Parts
The introductory part of the questionnaire contains a welcoming message and

explains the purpose of the study to the respondent, this included: title of the study, the
details of the questionnaire, brief instructions and a time approximation it would take to
complete answering the questions. Here are the general parts of the questionnaire:
13
Reliability refers to the extent to which a data-collecting procedure provides similar or roughly similar
results when used by different people or when utilized on various occasions by the same people.
14
Validity denotes the extent to which a data-collecting procedure measures what it is expected to measure.
38
Two
The Students’ Questionnaire
Part One The questionnaire’s information sheet
Part Two Questions investigation the students’ own perception and attitudes
towards their weaknesses as far as oral business English production is
concerned
Part Three Questions asking for proposal of activities or assignments that may be
undertaken to alleviate these deficiencies.
Table: 2.3: The General Parts of the Students’ Questionnaire
The Student’s Questionnaire
Part One The questionnaire’s information sheet
Part Two Questions investigation the students’ own perception and attitudes
towards weaknesses their students manifest during oral business
English classes
Part Three Questions asking for proposal of activities or assignments that may be
undertaken to alleviate these deficiencies.
Table: 2.4: The General Parts of the Teachers’ Questionnaire
2.4.4.4 The Questionnaire Layout

During the preliminary phase of the preparation of the questionnaire we put
emphasis mainly on the following points:
 The quality of questions: All questions were destined to answer research problem one
and two.
 The order of questions: we tried to order the questions to improve the logical flow of
topics.
39
Two
The questionnaire was developed and presented as a multi-page questionnaire. The

Students’Questionnaire contains 11 questions. However, the Teachers’ Questionnaire is
composed of 10 questions.
2.4.4.5 Language of the Questionnaire:
The questionnaire consists of a number of questions which were originally written

in English. The researcher provided also French and Classical Arabic versions of the
questionnaire. This was done to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation.
Furthermore, the researcher tried to reduce ambiguity in question interpretation by trying
to ensure clarity of language and expression. Benford, et al., (2008) pinpoint that clarity
and precision of expression are important when designing a questionnaire.
However, all participants chose the English version of the questionnaire and
answered questions using English.
2.4.4.6 Types of Questions
The questionnaires are made up of two types of questions:
 Open-ended questions: Serve to gather responses that could not be foreseen. Such
responses constitute rich descriptions ( freedom of expression through explanations
and illustrations ) that add to the credibility of the findings.(Figure 2.1)
Provide three main reasons which make you and/or your teacher the only
driver of an INEFFECTIVE BE oral course? 15
 …………………………………………………………………………………….
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Figure 2.1: Open-ended Survey Questions
15
Taken from the Students’ Questionnaire.
40
Two
 Closed questions : In closed questions, the nominal measurement scale with

dichotomous categories (Figure 2.2) is used to express ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, while the
ordinal scale itemized categories (Figure 2.3) enable respondents to express judgments
on behaviours they personally make or observe in other respondents’ habits.
Do you keep a distance from your students during your BE oral classes? 16
 Yes
 No
Figure3.2: Nominal Measurement Scale with Dichotomous Categories
Which of the following BE speaking activities do you enjoy the most? 17
 Games
 Vocabulary Learning
 Role Play
 Completing Dialogues
 Questions and Answers Exchanges
 Problem Solving
 Discussions in Pairs or Groups
 Free Discussions
 Interviews
 Picture Description
Figure2.3: Ordinal Scales with Itemized Categories
2.4.4.8 Dynamics of the Questionnaire
At the close of the survey, most respondents (80%) returned the questionnaire to
the researcher hand in hand. The return process was achieved 10 to 20 minutes after the
respondents received the questionnaires.
The answers were obtained from the questionnaires and were checked for
completeness and accuracy. Completeness pertains to whether a response is present for
each question that should be answered. Accuracy refers to whether answers are “logically
16
Taken from the Teachers’ Questionnaire
17
Taken from the Students’ Questionnaire.
41
Two
correct and acceptable” (Aaker et al., 2004: 263) given the possibility that respondents
may deliberately provide false information to mislead or because of their boredom to
answer all questions.
The answers were complete, yet, some questions (for example Q3, Q8, Q18) were
found to be largely incomplete despite the fact that most respondents were very
cooperative. The treatment of the data is discussed in the coming chapter.
2.4.4.9 Data processing
The data is, then, analyzed both using quantitative (percentages calculated and
represented in the form of charts and graphs) and qualitative (interpretation of results)
methods of analysis which will be exposed in chapter three.
2.4.5 Constraints on the Data
In this section, we will pinpoint some of the constraints that we met throughout the
process of data collection:
 We did not include recording of the students’ oral production as part of the data
collected for this study because the students did not accept to be recorded18.
 The data collection process was time consuming
 Expectations to get a large data set for the questionnaires were not met
 Problems of data quality: completeness and accuracy. We did not draw
conclusions based upon what is missing from the corpus19 of the study. Rather, we
focused on what is displayed in terms of behavior and attitudes.
 Impossibility to check seriousness or honesty of answers
 Low response rate.
 Problems of motivated respondents
18
Students did not trust the researcher as they were afraid finding the recordings on Facebook or any
virtual platform.
19
A corpus is a collection of linguistic data which is seen to be representative of a certain type of text,
interaction or discourse (Yates, 1996:103).
42
Two
 An Informal interview accompagnied our data collection process because of

incompleteness of answers.
2.5 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we tried to portray the focus of this dissertation by providing an

account of the research questions, the motivation and also the significance of the research.
This is done to help the reader follow the different steps of the research with ease and be
able to relate to the rationale that lies behind each step.
In this chapter, we also has accounted for the research tools we have relied on to
back up the different arguments related to the topic of the present study and provided data
on what should be collected and how it should be in terms of data for corpus analysis. We
adopted a singular approach through which data is to be gathered from questionnaires. We
also supported our investigation with combined qualitative and quantitative methods for
the collection and analysis of data most appropriate to be employed to investigate the
different research questions. Once the data collection campaign was traced I showed how
these data should be analyzed and interpreted.
The next chapter will hopefully provide a picture of what has been discovered on
the subject matter in order to, finally, try make tentative statements about the nature of the
problem in question and suggest some possible measures for improvement.
43
CHAPTER THREE
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
43
Chapter Findings and Recommendations
Three
Chapter Three: Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Introduction
This chapter reports the findings from several data collected in this study including
the students and teachers’ questionnaires. The results are presented in two principal
sections relatively proper to divergence in terms of data. The first and the second sections
report those data taken from both the students and the teachers’ questionnaires. It is hoped
that the data found in this investigation will provide foundation for discussing the research
questions under concern.
3.2 Data Analysis and Discussion of the Findings
Following the grouping of the item questions in the different parts of both the
students and teachers’ questionnaires, I shall now proceed to the analysis of the results
obtained in each section and discuss the main findings. This will be done by analyzing
data both quantitatively and qualitatively1. On the basis of the graphs below, I obtained
statistical data which give us various percentages of the findings that will hopefully serve
to identify problems (the HOW and the WHY) and suggest probable answers.
Data will be analyzed in two directions with major themes: difficulties stemming
from human factors (teachers and students), and difficulties stemming from non-human
factors. In short, the major findings will be presented and discussed in the coming
sections.
1
I chose to adopt both a qualitative and a quantitative methodology because there has been a shift away
from adopting only quantitative methodologies in educational research towards qualitative methodologies,
According to Kervin et al. (2005 : 35): “Educational research was initially dominated by quantitative
research designs because this was believed to be the superior form for gaining knowledge …
Dissatisfaction with the quantitative approach arose in the latter part of the twentieth century because the
kinds of questions that were relevant in school settings weren’t adequately answered by quantitative means.
As a result, in recent years, there has been an increase in qualitative studies that allow insight into these
complex educational settings.” Patton (1990:14) explains the role of the researcher in qualitative
paradigms; he stipulates that, in qualitative inquiry, “the researcher is the instrument”.
44
Three
3.3. Non-Appreciated BE Speaking Practices

3.3. 1. Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors
STUD Q1: Provide three reasons which make you and/or your teacher the only driver
of an ineffective BE oral course?
Answers were grouped according to the most important themes provided by the
informants2
Total Respondents: 72
Answers Number Percentage
a. Limited teachers’ experience 13 18,05%
b. Low teachers’ Training and 38 52,77%
Communicative competence
c. Lack of focus on teaching oral 68 94,44%
BE
Difficulties
Stemming
Teachers
d. Teacher’s manners and 53 73,61 %

from
reactions are not suitable

e. Teachers’ time to correcting 61 84,72%
mistakes is not enough
f. Teacher talk is more important 68 94,44%
than interaction
g. Teachers use a high level 39 54,16%
structures and vocabulary in
both GE and BE
h. Teachers /Students relationship 45 62,5%
Difficulties
Stemming
Students
a. Low Students’ participation 64 88,88%

from
during BE course activities
Table 3.1: Teachers and Students’ Inappropriate Practices
2
Each theme has been, then, investigated from the eye of the learner and/or the teacher.
45
Three
3.3. 1.1 Rubric 1: Teachers’ Experience

TEA Q1: How long have you been teaching Business English?
a. Less than 3 years 6 54,54%
b. Between 3 and 5 years 3 27,27%
c. More than 5 years 2 18,18%
BE Teachers Experience
Less than 3 years

Between 3 and 5 years
More than 5 years
Graph 3.1: Experience with Teaching BE
According to the data collected in Graph 3.1, 6 out of 11 teachers (54, 54%) have
been teaching English less than 3 years, 27, 27% have an experience of teaching between
3 and 5 years. The rest (18, 18%) have been teaching for more than 5 years. It is
concluded that more than half of the teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences
have been teaching BE less than 3 years, which is very significant in terms of their
language adjustment and experience in teaching speaking to BE students.
This is also indicative of less specialized educational qualifications. The master

degree at the department of English (University of Oran) is traditionally a linguistics
based program and studies in BE are not included in the MA and BA English programs at
46
Three
the department of English. Therefore, most BE teachers at the department of commercial

sciences did not receive specialized education in the area of their practice. This can be
explained as a lack of opportunities at both local and International levels.
In fact, ELT conferences and workshops are rare events in Algerian universities;
and at international level, most Algerian BE teachers cannot afford attending ELT events
because of financial reasons. For those who can afford it, lack of interest in BE or ELT
events can be seen as the major driving factor to the lack of training.
3.3. 1.2 Rubric 2: Teachers’ Training
TEA Q2: What is your last degree?

a. BA (License) 5 45,45%
b. MA (Magister/Master) 6 54,54%
c. Ph. D (Doctorate) 0 0%
BE Teachers' Degrees
BA (License)
MA (Magister/Master)
Ph. D (Doctorate)
Graph 3.2: BE Teachers’ Degrees
The above graph provides data about the BE teachers educational qualifications.
54, 54% hold the magister or the master degree, 45, 45% hold the bachelor degree, and
47
Three
none of them hold a PHD. By asking them, informally during the questionnaire
administration, about whether they have local or abroad degrees, all of them argued that
they have local graduation and local magisters and masters’ degrees.
TEA Q3: have you ever gone through a teaching training course on BE?
a. At a national level 3 27,27%
b. At an international Level 0 0%
c. Both national and international 0 0%
100%
90%
Both national and
80% international
70%
At an international Level
60%
50%
At a national level
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total Ters : 11
Graph 3.3: BE Received Training
Graph 3.3 shows data about whether or not BE teachers receive professional
training (in the form of conferences and workshops) to update their knowledge and
teaching methods. The results indicate that the vast majority (8 out of 11 teachers) did not
participate to any of these promotional professional experiences either locally or
internationally.
If the data provided in both Graph 3.1 and Graph 3.3 is analysed together, it is
evident to identify that a small percentage of BE teachers have basic BE teaching
competence as well as professional exposure to their domain of practice. This could be
48
Three
probably attributed to the lack of resources, unavailability of trainings and scientific

updating and promotion; or simply to interest from the part of BE teachers. Yet, it seems
that all these factors contribute to affect BE teaching practices at levels.
These BE teachers are almost new in this subject area and it was not expected that
they would have a long experience in this field. However, this also shows that there is no
professional or academic experience.
3.3.1.3 Rubric 3: Focus on Teaching Oral BE

TEA Q4: Are the oral / aural skills one of your major BE teaching concerns?
a. Yes 2 18,18%
b. No 9 81,81%
YES
NO
Graph 3.4: Oral Skill as a Major Teaching Concern
Here BE Oral skill is not a priority for BE teachers at the department of

Commercial Sciences. The graph 3.4 indicates that BE teachers do not reserve (81,81% )
much attention to the speaking skill when planning BE courses. Only 2 out of 11 BE
teachers (18, 18%) attempt to make BE speaking activities.
49
Three
This supports previous research findings which relate to the point that most BE
teachers at the department of commercial sciences are seriously concerned with general
English language proficiency and would devote much of their time to the development of
their students General English proficiency rather than the BE one. This could be seen as
an indicator of BE teachers’ dissatisfaction with their students’ English level and as a
result they are unable to tackle BE speaking activities without focusing and developing
GE speaking competence. However, it could also be their vision of BE teaching where BE
speaking English is not a priority for future Algerian employees who are invited to use
English at workplace.
3.3.1.4 Rubric 4: Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction
TEA Q5: How often do you correct students’ mistakes while they are performing their
oral BE tasks?
Never 0 0%
Seldom 0 0%
Sometimes 1 09,09 %
Frequently 10 90, 90 %
Other 0 0%
Total respondents
OTHER
FREQUENTLY
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Graph 3.5: Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Teachers’ Views)
50
Three
STU Q2: How often does your teacher correct students’ mistake while they are
performing their oral BE tasks?
Never 0 0%
Seldom 9 12,5%
Sometimes 59 81,94%
Frequently 4 5,55%
Other 0 0%
Total respondents
OTHER
FREQUENTLY
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.6: Mistakes’ Correction by Teachers (Students’ Views)
51
Three
STUD Q3: What is the reaction of your teacher when you make a lot of/repeated
mistakes?
The teacher keeps quiet until the students finish
their tasks, smile and encourage them to go on 4 5,55%
(A)
81,94%
The teacher stops them and correct mistakes (B) 59
The teacher gets annoyed when students keep
9 12,5%
making mistakes (C)
0%
Other (D) 0
Total respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.7: Teachers’ reaction to students’ Mistakes (Students’ Views)
It seems that data from graph 3.6 and graph 3.7 are to a great extent contradictory.
Basing on students’ opinion, 81,94% of the students receive , from time to time, mistakes’
correction from the part of their teachers, 12,5% of them receive seldom mistakes’
correction, and the rest ( a very small group : 5,5 %) argue that they are frequently
52
Three
corrected by their teachers. On the other side, 90, 90 % of teachers confirm active
participation in correcting their students’ mistakes.
In Graph 3.7, teachers’ reaction towards correcting students’ mistakes are

improper. This confirmation of the improper way of correcting mistakes is supported by
results from student question 3 which show that there still exist some teachers who may
show unsatisfaction and even angriness when a student makes a mistake. In addition to
that, some students (5, 55%) argued that very little teachers put students at ease and let
them finish their tasks, smile and encourage them to go on. From these statistical data, it
can be understood that the ways of mistakes’ correction applied by most of the Oral BE
teachers at the department of Commercial Sciences prevented students from speaking
freely in oral BE classes
3.3.1.5 Rubric 5: Teacher’ Talk Time
STUD Q4: How long is your teacher’s talk time?

a. 1/4 course time 0 0%
b. 2/4 course time 13 18,05 %
c. 3/4 course time 59 81,94 %
d. 4/4 course time 0 0%
53
Three
Total respondents
4/4 course time
3/4 course time
2/4 course time
1/4 course time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.8: Teacher’ Talk Time
Data from Graph 3.8 clearly shows that much of the BE teachers’ participations in
the learning process exceed ¾ of the course’s allotted time. This confirms that these
teachers are still applying traditional teaching methods where teaching is primarily based
on the teacher’s contribution (a teacher-centeredness approach) and which is originally
used for teaching EGP (grammar-centeredness approach) .
In such an approach the teacher mainly focuses on explaining, giving the forms of
grammar structures and providing the meaning of vocabulary and pronunciation accuracy.
As a result of this traditional approach to teaching BE , teachers occupy more class-time
than students; they provide new words, explain grammar structures, give examples, and
forget that their role is to facilitate the learning process not to spoon-feed the learners.
54
Three
3.3.1.6 Rubric 6: Teachers’ Input
STU Q5: To what extent do you grasp the input provided by your teacher during BE oral
courses?
To 100% 0 0%
To 75 % 5 12,5%
To 50 % 31 5,55%
To 25 % 36 81,94%
From 0 to 25 % 0 0%
Total respondents
From 0 to 25 %
To 25 %
To 50 %
To 75 %
To 100%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.9: Teachers’ Input (Students’ Views)
55
Three
TEA Q6: Do you check understanding during your oral BE courses?
Never 0 0%
Seldom 0 0%
Sometimes 0 0%
Frequently 2 18,18 %
Always 9 81,81 %
Other 0 0%
Total respondents
OTHER
ALWAYS
FREQUENTLY
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Graph 3.10: Checking Understanding of Input during BE Course Time
56
Three
TEA Q7: To what extent do your students grasp the input you provide during course
time?
To 100% 0 0%
To 75 % 8 72,72%
To 50 % 3 27,27%
To 25 % 0 0%
From 0 to 25 % 0 0%
Total respondents
From 0 to 25 %
To 25 %
To 50 %
To 75 %
To 100%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Graph 3.11: Teachers’ Input (Teachers’ Views)
As can be seen from Graph 3.9 a surprisingly great number of students (81, 94%)
argue that they suffer from incomprehensible input during BE oral courses. Graph 3.10
and Graph 3.11, on the other hand, provide contradictory data as to teachers’
responsibility in checking understanding and providing comprehensible input during BE
course time. In fact, 81, 81 % of the teachers argue that they check understanding during
course time and 72, 72% of them assert that they provide comprehensible data to their
students.
57
Three
This could be seen as one of the inappropriate teacher pedagogical practices. This
describes inconvenient pedagogical situations where students cannot grasp what the
teacher is saying. It is suggested that incomprehensible input can be considered as one of
the major contributing factors to students’ difficulties at classroom level3.
According to Koch & Terrell (1991) 4, learning will occur only when learners acquire
language by understanding input that is a little beyond their current level of competence.
To achieve comprehensible input transmission, teachers are supposed to not only master the
different instances of speech instruction but also make use of the mother tongue from time to
time or when necessary5.
3.3.1.7 Rubric 7: Students’ Low Participation

TEA Q8: Do your students participate actively in the oral BE activities and
assignments?
To 100% 0 0%
To 75 % 0 0%
To 50 % 3 27,27%
To 25 % 8 72,72%
From 0 to 25 % 0 0%
3
Krashen’s view (1985), learning only takes place by means of a learner’s access to comprehensible input.
4
Referring to the input hypothesis in the Natural Approach
5
During an informal interview undertaken during the data collection process some students complained
that their teachers used too much English or refused to use any French or Arabic at all which resulted in
their incapability to keep up during class.
58
Three
Total respondents
From 0 to 25 %
To 25 %
To 50 %
To 75 %
To 100%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Graph 3.12: Students’ Low Participation (Teachers’ Views)
STU Q6: Do you participate actively in the oral BE activities and assignments?
a. Yes 17 23,61%
b. No 5 6,94%
c. Not very much 50 69,44 %
YES
NO
Not very much
Graph 3.13: Students’ Low Participation (Students’ Views)
59
Three
Data from Graph 3.12 and 3.13 clearly shows that both students (69,44 %) and
teachers (72,72%) assert that students provide very little contribution to the dynamism of
the learning teaching interaction during Oral BE courses.
Unlike reading, writing and listening activities, speaking activities need active
participation of both partners (students and teachers). In order to know more about the
WHY for such reluctance from the part of the students, we asked the informants about the
reasons for such attitude.
STUQ 7: If you answered (No) or (Not very much) in STUQ 6, please provide 3 main
reasons that lie behind your attitude
Major themes6:
 Informant 67: “ I find it difficult to say a whole idea or a sentence in a foreign
language”
 Informant 13: “ I am afraid of making mistakes and loosing face in front of my
classmates and my teacher”
 Informant 41: “ I am afraid of being criticized or laughed at by our teacher”
 Informant 5: “ I very shy and I do not want to attract the attention of my
classmates ”
 Informant 22: “ I find it not necessary to participate because my teacher prefers to
talk and teach only 3 or 4 students she prefers”
 Informant 29: “ I sometimes would like to participate, yet, my teacher does not
allow me because of limited talking time ”
6
The formulation of the major themes was rewritten by the researcher because the students’ formulation
was written in incorrect English.
60
Three
RELATIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
REASONS REASONS
PEDAGOGICAL
REASONS
Figure 3.1 : Reasons behind Students' Non Participation In

Talking Time during Oral BE Courses
Through the above answers, it is suggested that most of the difficulties that
students often encounter in participating to course’ talking time during oral BE classes are
probably classified under the following headings: psychological reasons (Informant 13,
Informant 41, and Informant 5), relational reasons (Informant 22), and pedagogical
reasons (Informant 67 and Informant 29).
3.3. 2. Difficulties Stemming from Non-Human factors
3.3. 2.1. Rubric 1: Teachers/Students’ Relationship
STUQ 8: Do your teachers keep a distance from you during BE oral classes?
YES 59 81,94%
NO 13 18,05%
61
Three
YES
NO
Graph 3.14: Teachers/Students’ Relationship (Students’ Views)
TEA Q9: Do you keep a distance from your students during your BE oral classes?
YES 9 81,81%
NO 2 18,18%
YES
NO
Graph 3.15: Teachers/Students’ Relationship (Teachers’ Views)

62
Three
It is obvious from Graph 3.14 and Graph 3.15 above that more than 80% of the
students and the teachers agree that there is a clear distance between the learner and the
teacher during the learning process. 81, 94% of the students revealed that their teachers
often keep a distance from them during BE oral courses.
As a result, students felt tense and had fewer opportunities to express themselves as
well as to improve their oral ability7. This has led, according to most students, to a distant
teacher-student relationship and to a very unrelaxed and stressful classroom atmosphere.
These data relate two main variables, namely the learning atmosphere versus the
relationship between teachers and students. It is suggested that unfavorable relational
aspects between students and teachers may be devastating and could be a potential source
of difficulty during oral BE course time.
3.3. 2.2. Rubric 2: Teachers’ Communicative Competence
STUQ 9: To what extent is your teacher good at oral BE courses?
To 100% 3 4,16 %
To 75 % 10 13,88%
To 50 % 53 73,61%
To 25 % 6 8,33 %
From 0 to 25 % 0 0%
7
During an informal interview, the student interviewees were asked to reflect and give comments on the
teacher-learner relationship in their BE speaking classes; their responses to this question were amazingly
consistent. Most of them affirmed that their teachers did not have a close relation with their students. More
particularly, Students observed that their teachers viewed themselves as superior to their students: “They
were very serious, unfriendly and unhelpful”.
63
Three
Total respondents
From 0 to 25 %
To 25 %
To 50 %
To 75 %
To 100%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.16: Teachers’ Communicative Competence (Students’ Views)

TEA Q10: To what extent do you feel at ease when delivering Oral BE courses?
To 100% 2 18,18 %
To 75 % 2 18,18 %
To 50 % 6 54,54 %
To 25 % 1 9,09 %
From 0 to 25 % 0 0%
Total respondents
From 0 to 25 %
To 25 %
To 50 %
To 75 %
To 100%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Graph 3.17: Teachers’ Communicative Competence (Teachers’ Views)
64
Three
It can be seen from Graph 3.17 that more than half of the teachers (6 out of 11: 54, 54
%) did not feel self-confident enough about teaching BE speaking courses; From Graph
3.16 we can observe that more than half of the students (53 out of 72: 73, 61%) believe that
their teacher is proficient only 50% when it comes to the delivery of oral BE courses. This
lack of confidence from the part of the teachers and students’ awareness of their teachers’
incapacity to conduct various oral communicative situations make us suggest that the
teaching/learning equation is going probably to face problematic issues from relational and
communicative points of views.
In this regard, the teachers’ shortage of self-confidence about teaching speaking BE

can be explained as a lack of English communicative competence. Communicative
competence, according to Hedge (2000) 8, includes not only linguistic competence but also
a range of sociolinguistic and conversational skills that enable the speaker to realize how to
say what to whom, when etc. During an informal interview, teachers were asked about the
problems attached to their English communicative competence. Most of the teachers
admitted that they were deficient in this ability, which constrained their teaching of BE
speaking activities. They argued that Algeria is not a country where English is spoken so
English is a foreign language to both teachers and students. Consequently, not only teachers
but also students lack a language environment to develop their communicative competence,
which prevents them from communicating in English successfully.
3.4. Most Appreciated BE Speaking Practices

3.4.1. Rubric 1: BE Students’ Opinions on Best Teacher Pedagogical Practices in BE
Speaking Courses
8
See also Canale & Swain (1980), Richards, Platt &Weber (1985), Littlewood (1994).
65
Three
STUQ10: Which of the following BE speaking activities do you enjoy the most?
a. Games 72 100%
b. Vocabulary Learning 72 100%
c. Role Play 67 93.05%
d. Completing Dialogues 61 84,72%
e. Questions and Answers Exchanges 47 65,27%
f. Problem Solving 38 52,77%
g. Discussions in Pairs or Groups 38 52.77%
h. Free Discussions 12 16.66%
i. Interviews 16 22.22%
j. Picture Description 7 09,72%
Total respondents
Picture Description
Interviews
Free Discussions
Discussions in Pairs or Groups
Problem solving
Q & A Exchanges
Completing Dialogues
Role-play
Vocabulary Learning
Games
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.18: Students’ Interest in BE speaking activities
The statistics provided in Graph 3.18 reveal that all the students (100%) like games
most, followed by role play (93.05%) because these communicative activities help them to
66
Three
reduce their stress as well as motivate them to speak. Eighty four percent point seventy
two of the subjects enjoy completing dialogues while (65.27%) found questions and
answers exchanges enjoyable. These activities are easy for teachers to prepare and easy
enough for students to do. Interestingly, the number of the students who approved
problem solving and discussions in pairs or groups was the same (52.77%). The next
preferable activities were free discussion (16.66%), interview (22.22%) and picture
description (09,72%).
Students show a preference towards activities where there is more freedom and
possibilities for group work or team work activities (games, role play, vocabulary
learning…etc.). These activities provide the learner with the possibility to be an active
partner in the teaching learning process and not to be spoon-fed by the teacher. Again the
role of the teacher is emphasized as a facilitator and a mediator not as a protagonist during
the teaching/learning process.
STU Q11: In BE oral expression classes, do you prefer ?

a. Individual work 12 16,66%
b. Pair work 56 77,77%
c. Group work 70 97,22%
67
Three
Total respondents
Group work
Pair work
Individual work
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Graph 3.19: Students’ Interest in Individual versus Team work BE Speaking

activities
By referring to Graph 3.19 results, it seems that more than 90 % (97,22%) of the
students prefer working in team , 77,77% of them like to have a partner during BE
speaking activities, and only 16,66% of the students enjoy working alone.
To function successfully during BE oral course time, students show a need for a
partner: be it an individual partner or a team-form partner. The objective is to be
accompanied and supported. This feeling can help learners to explain better their ideas, to
express their feelings in an open and non-threatening way. It will help learners to initiate
conversations and also to listen carefully to others; and perhaps ask questions to clarify
others’ ideas and emotions. It is also going to push learners to interact and reflect on the
activities and interactions of their group and encourage other group members to do so as
well.
68
Three
3.5 Suggestions and Conclusions
In the light of the results of this investigation, this section draws conclusions from
the multiple findings and tries to shed the light on what it should be integrated and what it
should not be done in a BE Oral course event from the point of view of the student, the
teacher, and the researcher. We will provide some suggestions and acknowledge the
limitations. Some implications for learning and teaching speaking BE are put forward and
suggestions are made for future research within the same field.
From our respondents’ answers to the questionnaires (teachers’ and students’

responses), it is observed that difficulties in teaching and learning the skill of speaking in
BE English classes are numerous. Some of the problems are stemming from human
factors and others from non-human factors. Here are the main findings of the different
rubric questions and some suggestions to alleviate these difficulties. The rubrics
summarized in the following table:
Rubrics
Teachers’ Experience
Human Factors
Teachers’ Training
Difficulties
Stemming
Focus on Teaching Oral BE

from
Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction

Teacher’ Talk Time
Teachers’ Input
Students’ Low Participation
Teachers/Students’ Relationship
Non-Human
Difficulties
Stemming
Factors
Communicative Competence
from
Table 3.2 : Rubrics Findings’ Summary
69
Three
3.5.1 Coping with Difficulties Stemming from Human Factors
3.5.1.1 Teachers’ Experience & Training
Teachers’ experience, their lack of specialized knowledge and their deficiency in

terms of competence (mainly strategic and sociolinguistic) is handicapping the learning
process. Many would agree that teachers who have had more preparation for teaching are
more confident and successful with students than those who have had little or none. Yet, it
is rather important to stress the fact that there should be some distinction between theory
and practice. Language teaching clearly asks for both of them yet, the lion share should be
reserved to practice and experience which give meaning to theory. Brumfit (1983) argued
that the teacher training slogan should be: 'We teach teaching, not about teaching’.
Brumfit (1983) argues that the ideal for theoretical studies is that they should be closely
associated with practice: thinking and talking about what we are doing while we are doing
it.
 Suggestions
An important contribution to any teaching/ learning process is the development of

teachers’ abilities through planning their education and training. The teacher training
and education should cover and examine the perspectives of learners who bring diverse
experiences and frames of reference to the classroom.
Distance learning or Virtual learning is an excellent method of providing education

and training for teachers. This method is fruitful as teachers need flexibility to contend
with their professional and personal priorities. Language teachers should also be trained
the way they are expected to teach their students i.e. by taking into consideration the pros
and cons of the teaching environment and the nature of the learning population.
3.5.1.2 Focus on Teaching Oral BE
Findings support the fact that most BE teachers at the department of commercial
sciences focus in their BE course on developing general English language proficiency
70
Three
rather than the BE one. This is seen as an indicator of BE teachers’ dissatisfaction with
their students’ English level and as a result they are unable to tackle BE speaking
activities without focusing and developing GE speaking competence. However, it could
also be their vision of BE teaching where BE speaking English is not a priority for future
Algerian employees who are invited to use English at workplace. Some students argued
that speaking BE is not or will not be necessary in their job, referring to the Algerian
context. Others further added that using BE in Algeria and the demand for BE oral
communication with foreigners (BE experts and professionals) is very scarce.
During an informal interview, teachers complained about the teaching time. They
argued that they are working around the clock to finish the syllabus on time. They added
that in the department of Commercial Sciences, the time devoted to BE lessons in each
semester is limited to 14 sessions of 1 hour and a half each week. This actually puts a
great pressure on the teachers, and pushes them to abandon many teaching activities
because of time constraints.
 Suggestions
Many would understand teachers’ choice as to the teaching of an important amount

of EGP during an ESP course (ESP). It is very significant to acknowledge the role EGP is
playing during ESP courses; Yet, this could be devastating if the teacher is unable to
management the EGP versus the ESP contents in an identified ESP business learning
environment. We believe that balancing both EGP and ESP contents with a more focus on
ESP would bring about better results. We suggest also that the choice should be governed
by a need analysis perspective: EAP and ESP programs should not be developed without
conducting a systematic needs analysis from both the students’ and teachers ’ points of
views.
3.5.1.3 Mistakes’ Correction and Manner of Correction
It seems that mistakes’ correction and the way students’ mistakes are being
corrected by their teachers is a problematic issue. In fact, we need to acknowledge that
teachers’ feedback on students’ oral performance is very significant because it might serve
71
Three
not only to let them know how well they are performing their English but also to increase
their eagerness to learn and be motivated. It is relevant, at this stage to pinpoint how much
error correction is indispensable for effective teaching and learning. What remains
challenging, in such situations, is to highlight the importance of the manner of correction
in motivating or demotivating learners. A good case of a demotivating learning
environment would happen when a teacher is showing unsatisfaction and/or angriness
when a student makes a mistake. Some of them may go to blame his/her students on
minor and major mistake and sometimes make use of condemning words to punish them.
As a response to a teacher rude manner of correcting mistakes, students may feel
embarrassed, confused, ashamed, less self-confident, and easily inhibited9. If teachers
keep doing so, they cannot enhance students’ communicative ability. On the contrary,
they may construct students’ fear of making oral mistakes
 Suggestions
A number of researchers have related students’ feeling embarrassed, confused,

ashamed, less self-confident etc to a state of anxiety. Language anxiety is becoming a hot
topic in didactics because it is an important area of research for teachers, researchers and
practitioners. This state of learning a language with anxiety (feeling anxious towards the
use of a particular language) can have profound consequences on the language learning
process. Teachers are invited to provide significantly an enjoyable, relaxed, and free-of-
anxiety learning environment through (as a matter of example) :
 avoiding speaking activities or Teachers’ actions or reactions which may cause

students to be nervous or uncomfortable;
 Reduce anxiety through a variety of activities (use of games, role play,
videos…etc.)
 Adapt a tolerant attitude towards students’ errors (consider mistakes as part of the
natural process of language learning)
 Avoid correcting every single mistake.
9
According to students’ answers depicted during an informal interview undertaken with students.
72
Three
 Adapt a respectful, not direct and intrusive manner of mistake treatment10.

 Select the right timing to correct students’ errors (preferably at the end of their
speech)
3.5.1.4 Teacher’ Talk Time
In this rubric, teachers’ participations in the learning process exceed ¾ of the

course’s allotted time. In such a context, the teacher plays the role of an information
provider rather than a facilitator or a partner. Consequently, students are not given space
for interaction and exchange to develop their oral performance ability and self-confidence.
We have evidence on the point that there are many learners who have rich vocabulary,
know most rules of grammar and, yet they are so bad in tests because they are unable to
practice and produce language in context.
 Suggestions
Students need to receive better preparation during BE oral classes through focusing
on providing pedagogical support which make them able to communicate in and out of
work. We cannot deny that during oral courses it is important to give a share to
developing linguistic rules and competence (grammar and vocabulary) but not the lion
share11.
More time planning is required in the case of the present research population. In
fact, teachers and students complained about having time limit to plan varied activities
and little chance to participate.
To develop students’ communicative competence, it is very prominent to understand

that heterogeneous classes and large classes pose a problem to teachers and teaching. In a
multilevel class, it is prevalent to observe that low English proficiency students are
unwilling to have cooperation or open conversations with high English proficiency level.
In a large class, on the other hand, teachers are unable to satisfy the needs of all students
10
According to Young (1991), one way to provide feedback without much anxiety and inhibition is to model
students’ responses.
11
Teachers need to adopt the communicative approach of teaching, not the traditional grammar-translation
one.
73
Three
because it is difficult to find content which is sharply-focused enough for all members of
the class. Teachers are much challenged in such circumstances because the more students a
class has, the more difficult it is for the teacher to control class activities. It is not possible
for teachers to allow overlapping or simultaneous talk. It is also not possible for teachers to
give each student attention and to be sure that they are all engaged in the oral activities
task especially the extroverted and low proficient students.
To make things work better, we suggest a placement test entry for BE classes during
master levels where students will be directed to more or less homogenous classes to enjoy
equity at both the teaching and learning levels. We also propose a 20 students-class
number so that teachers and students can enjoy a good classroom management.
Time constraint during BE oral courses is stressing and challenging both teachers
and learners because it requires extra efforts from the part of the teachers and make
students learn little. It also leads to a methodology problem because teachers usually are
overloaded and reluctant to such teaching environments. It is suggested, at this stage, to
plan class timing for conversation classes in BE English to provide sufficient and
adequate time for teachers to plan varied speaking activities and enough interactional
space for learners to enjoy cooperation, share and exchange.
3.5.1.5 Teachers’ Input
Students showed unsatisfaction towards the type of input they receive during BE
oral courses. A great majority asserted that they are, in most cases, incapable of
understanding what the teacher is saying. Krashen (1985) argues that learning only takes
place by means of a learner’s access to comprehensible input. Referring to the input
hypothesis in the Natural Approach, on the other hand, Koch & Terrell (1991) propose
that learning will occur only when learners acquire language by understanding input that is
a little beyond their current level of competence.
 Suggestions
It is suggested that it is preponderant for any successful teaching process to ensure

the comprehensible input transmission that is just beyond the actual level of students. This
74
Three
could be achieved through turning, according to Van Patten (1996) and Skehan (1998)
INPUT into INTAKE.
In Van Patten (1996) and Skehan (1998)’s terms, to turn input into intake students
need not only to understand but control the attention they attach to particular parts of the
input they hear and understand. For instance, Teachers should draw attention towards
relevant cues and parts in the input, so that it is not only meaning but form that students
are able to perceive (Van Patten, 1996). It is suggested that teachers can use a number of
communication strategies like for example:
 Talking clearly and slowly;
 Using repetition, word Coinage, Literal translation, Language Switching,
 Using samples, charts, pictures, gestures and body language,
 Using the mother tongue when necessary,
 Ensure interactivity,
 Memorisation,
 Using well-formed Clauses
 Using Shorter Clauses
 Using Less complex Clauses
Teachers can also transmit comprensible input through visual aids. This can
involve use:
 Using authentic material
 Drawing,
 Pictures,
 Video projection
 Written material (magazines, books, flyers…etc.)
75
Three
3.5.1.6 Students’ Low Participation
There is strong evidence for the importance of participating in class (Lyons, 1989;
Petress, 2006; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Cohen (1991: 699) argues that participation is a way
to bring
“…students actively into the educational process’’ and to

assist in ‘‘enhancing our teaching and bringing life to the
classroom”.
When students engage in the communication process through participation, they

will become motivated, learn better, and become better critical thinkers (Junn, 1994;
Crone, 1997; Garside, 1996; Daggett, 1997; Garard, Hunt, Lippert, & Paynton, 1998;
Weaver & Qi, 2005; Kuh & Umbach, 2004). The more they participate, the less
memorization they do, and the more they engage in higher levels of thinking, including
interpretation, analysis, and synthesis (Smith, 1977).
Through the interview results, it is suggested that most of the difficulties that
students often encounter in participating to course’ talking time during oral BE classes are
classified under the following headings:
 Psychological Reasons
Students …
 are afraid of making mistakes and loosing face in front of their classmates and the
teacher
 are afraid of being criticized or laughed at by the teacher
 Relational Reasons :
Students …
 Are very shy and they do not want to attract the attention of their classmates
 find it not necessary to participate because the teacher prefers to talk and teach
only 3 or 4 students he/she prefers
76
Three
 Pedagogical Reasons
Students …
 like to participate, yet, the teacher does not allow them because of limited talking
time
 Suggestions
It is suggested that it is high time to forget about past educational experiences and
traditional classes and to reserve much importance to the psychological and relational
aspects during the teaching learning process. In the process of learning speaking, students
often encounter the risk of saying out things that may be wrong, stupid and
incomprehensible. At those times, they tend to be anxious because they do not want to be
judged by other learners. Additionally, in many different parts of Algeria, teachers and
learners insist on marks and success neglecting the pedagogical, relational and
psychological sides of the matter. Students had also formed the habit of sitting in class and
listening quietly to teachers without any interference or engagement.
Teachers should favour working in team work and make students comfortable
with autonomous learning and situations where the teacher is not an authority figure12 to
avoid psychological and relational learning constraints.
Personal traits can be identified as causing reluctance in BE oral courses. Teachers

should also avoid showing preference towards a particular student or a group of students.
13
Feeling unestimated or unliked by the teacher could have a devastating impact on
willingness and motivation towards the course and the group dynamism. All students
should feel that they are the essential partners of the teacher.
12
According to Breen and Candlin (1980), the teacher has three main roles in a speaking class. The first is
to act as a facilitator of the communicative process, the second is to act as a participant, and the third is to
act as an observer
13
As claimed by Ellis (1999), the extroverted people are more willing to interact with others while the
introverted and shy ones prefer to be quiet and listen to others.
77
Three
We believe that motivation14 could be a driving force for a better and less
constrained teaching environment. Instrumental motivation15, in the case of BE oral
courses, should be the answer for teachers who wish to plan BE oral courses because it is
the one which is making students learn BE as an instrument for their professional success
and promotion.
Intrinsic motivation16, rather than the extrinsic one, is much needed because it
develops the desire to engage in an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some
separable consequences (for example evaluation or marks) 17.
3.5.2 Coping with Difficulties Stemming from Non-Human Factors
3.5.2.1 Teachers/Students’ Relationship
Data revealed that BE students affirmed that their teachers did not have a close
relationship with them. This has led, according to most students, to a distant teacher-
student relationship and to a very unrelaxed and stressful classroom atmosphere.
 Suggestions
It is suggested that unfavorable relational aspects and authority distance between

students and teachers could be a potential source of threat for any Teaching learning
14
Motivation, according to Gardner ( 1985: 10) refers to “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve
the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes towards learning the language”
15
Littlewood (1990) makes a distinction between “integrative” and “instrumental” motivation. “A learner
with integrative motivation has a genuine interest in the second language community. He wants to learn
their language in order to communicate with them more satisfactorily and to gain closer contact with them
and their culture”; whereas a learner with instrumental motivation “is more interested in how the second
language can be a useful instrument towards furthering other goals, such as gaining a necessary
qualification or improving employment prospects”.
16
Motivation may be termed “extrinsic” if the purposes of the language study arise from external stimuli
while the intrinsic motivation is often understood as the learner’s natural interest (Fisher, 1990).
17
See Ryan & Deci (2000)
78
Three
environment. Partnership should reign18: students and teachers willingness to become

partners and to communicate openly with one another brings about a harmonious climate
and an effective learning process.
In the Interview, students were asked to reflect on the personality types of teachers
they wish to have and who may bring about an enjoyable and adequate classroom climate.
These were their descriptions:
 Teachers who are friendly
 Teachers who are considerate
 Teachers who are funny
 Teachers who are tolerant
 Teachers who are sympathetic
 Teachers who are patient
 Teachers who like to play games with us and become a partner
 Teachers who do not discriminate between students
In general, it is preferable to avoid authority distance which leads, in most

situations, to a tense classroom atmosphere
3.5.2.2 Teachers’ Communicative Competence
We decided to integrate Teachers’ Communicative Competence as a non human

factor because we believe that communicative competence, in this context, is to a great
extent to exposure to a native speaking context. Most of the teachers admitted that they
were deficient in this ability because Algerian is not a country where English is spoken. As
a result, teachers lack a language environment where to develop their communicative
competence.
18
Ryan & Deci (2000) consider that regular open communication, in which group members share their
thoughts, ideas, and feelings, is a must for successful group work. Unspoken assumptions and issues can be
very destructive to productive group functioning.
79
Three
 Suggestions
We suggest that teachers should look at the bright side and be optimistic. Not all
teachers of English worldwide are natives or have got the possibility to receive training or
visit English native countries. Scholars argue that a teacher is a builder: they can build
their communicative competence through integrating the virtual world and making use of
its magnificent and varied resources. An ideal teacher definition refers probably to the one
who build his knowledge on research and a needs analysis approach NOT on the one who
possesses the linguistic competence. It is also proposed that the University of Oran should
organize training courses on teaching BE English in light of the Communicative Approach
from time to time and offer external training in countries where English is used as a first
language.
3.5.3 Participants’ suggestions for reducing the difficulties in learning BE

speaking
As to students’ preferences, BE teachers should insist on developing oral activities

which favour PAIR or TEAM WORK through the following students’ most enjoyed
learning material:
 Games
 Vocabulary Learning
 Role Play
 Completing Dialogues
 Questions and Answers Exchanges
 Problem Solving
 Interviews
3.6 Chapter Summary
In this research work, it was interesting to discover that human and non-human
factors are the driving force behind deficiencies at the oral level when it comes to discuss
this issue in a business English context. Most of the teachers are characterized by
inappropriate pedagogical practices such as too much talking time, unsuitable mistake
80
Three
correction, incomprehensible input and too distant teacher-learner relationship. These data
were exploited from the students’ opinions. Also, many teachers themselves admitted that
they were deficient in English communicative competence.
Students were also at the heart of the problem because of their low motivation for
learning English and particularly speaking Business English, low level of English
proficiency and negative personal traits. Some other external factors like large and
multilevel English classes, time constraints could also seen as major hindrances to
teaching speaking BE.
It is suggested that teachers have to improve their English communicative ability,

and provide BE oral activities which can help promote interactivity and partnership
through activities, tasks and assignments such as games, vocabulary learning, role play,
completing dialogues, questions and answers exchanges…etc. It is also suggested that
teachers should create a better English learning environment and introduce more
interactive and communicative activities during BE speaking courses.
81
GENERAL
CONCLUSION
General Conclusion
General Conclusion
Many would agree that students from across the globe are looking forward to
taking business English lessons and the reasons are obvious. In today’s globalized world,
English is the language of choice when it comes to conducting business and economic
activities. Moreover, those who seek better job opportunities also wish to learn BE to get
better chances in today’s tough job market.
Business English courses can be administered through writing, reading, listening

and speaking. All these skills help the students to meet their communication goals and
enjoy a diverse and a very dynamic terrain for learning and making use of BE when they
are at work level.
This thesis deals with speaking as one of four basic language skills and its
development in teaching Business English. The aim is to find out about the constraints
that may handicap the process of teaching and learning BE so that to propose best
practices and strategies to cope with the problem at stake.
This work is based particularly on investigating the difficulties faced by the

teachers and students in teaching and learning the business English speaking skill. The
researcher has based the instrumentation of two questionnaires (the students’
questionnaire and the teacher’s questionnaire), the research methodology and a research
skeleton to adequately research to what extent BE oral courses are constrained by internal
and external factors.
Findings of the present work are divided into groups as difficulties and
suggestions. In order to help the reader easily grasp the main findings each difficulty is
displayed and followed by its solutions. Another very important aspect of the findings-
relating to the constraints- is the fact that they were recognized as being human and non-
human.
As to the human factors, findings reveal that the lack of teacher experience and
expertise, lack of focus on teaching BE speaking skill, unsuitable mistakes and manner of
82
General Conclusion
correcting mistakes, too much talk time, poor teacher’ input, students’ low participation.
Non-human factors, on the other hand, are found to be the distant teachers/students’
relationship and deficient teachers’ communicative competence.
The research suggestions try to answer the research questions, propose how to cope
with these difficulties, and also reflect the situation of teaching and learning BE oral
courses at the department of commercial sciences, University of Oran.
Although the researcher has made efforts toward conducting this thesis, there
undoubtedly exist some limitations. Because of the small group of teachers and students
involved in the research, we believe that our conclusions are only tentative. A study with a
large number of teachers and students to investigate their difficulties and solutions would
certainly have more valid and reliable data. Therefore, further studies with larger
population in different contexts and universities should be carried out to show more
convincing results.
As to future directions for research, we think that investigating teaching and

learning BE speaking from various points of views is a topic that is not exhausted in any
way. It is suggested to work on a need analysis basis so that to develop some activities for
students which may help them improve their speaking skill. Furthermore, an action
research on the effectiveness of the present research findings calls for further studies.
Finally, it would seem that research on EFL teaching/ learning is like the process
itself- vast, evolving and infinitely varied.
83
Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendices Appendix One
Appendix One
The Student’s Questionnaire

University of Oran
Department of English
The Information Sheet
I do thank you for accepting to participate in this questionnaire survey.
Dear student,
You are kindly requested to fill in this questionnaire to give information about your Speaking
Performance in English. Your answers are very important for the validity of this research.
You will need 15mn to complete answering all the questions.
As such, we hope that you will give us your full attention and interest.
Please, Circle the choice that corresponds to your answer.
Personal information:
1.a Sex: 1. b Age:………………………………………
 Male
 Female
1. Provide three main reasons which make you and/or your teacher the only driver of
an INEFFECTIVE BE oral course?
 …………………………………………………………………………………….
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
2. How often does your teacher correct students’ mistake while they are performing
their oral BE tasks?
 Never
 Seldom
 Sometimes
 Frequently
 Other
83
3. What is the reaction of your teacher when you make a lot of/repeated mistakes?
 The teacher keeps quiet until the students finish their tasks, smile and encourage
them to go on.
 The teacher stops them and correct mistakes.
 The teacher gets annoyed when students keep making mistakes.
 Other.
4. How long is your teacher’s talk time?
 1/4 course time.

5. To what extent do you grasp the input provided by your teacher during BE oral
courses?
 To 100%.
 To 75 %.
 To 50 %.
 To 25 %.
 From 0 to 25 %
6. Do you participate actively in the oral BE activities and assignments?
 Yes.
 No.
 Not very much.
7. If you answered (No) or (Not very much) in Question 6, please provide 3 main
reasons that lie behind your attitude.
 …………………………………………………………………………………….
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
 ……………………………………………………………………………………
8. Does your teachers keep a distance from you during BE oral classes?
 Yes.
 No.
84
9. To what extent is your teacher good at oral BE courses?
 To 100%.
 To 75 %.
 To 50 %.
 To 25 %.
 From 0 to 25 %
10. Which of the following BE speaking activities do you enjoy the most?
 Games
 Vocabulary Learning
 Role Play
 Completing Dialogues
 Questions and Answers Exchanges
 Problem Solving
 Discussions in Pairs or Groups
 Free Discussions
 Interviews
 Picture Description
11. In BE oral expression class, do you prefer?

 Individual work
 Pair work
 Group work
Thank you again for your cooperation!
85
Appendices Appendix Three
Appendix Three
The Teacher’s Questionnaire

University of Oran
Department of English
I do thank you for accepting to participate in this questionnaire survey.

This questionnaire serves as a data collection tool for a research work that aims to investigate
Speaking Performance Deficiency among learners of business English: the case of master students
at the department of commercial sciences, university of Oran.
I would very much appreciate if you could take the time and the energy to share your experience by
answering the questions below. Your answers are very important and will be of much help for the
completion of this work.
Please, circle the choice that best represents your answer and give full answer where necessary.
Personal information:
1.a Sex: 1. b Age:………………………………………
a. Male
b. Female
1. How long have you been teaching Business English?

 Less than 3 years
 Between 3 and 5 years
 More than 5 years
2. What is your last degree?

 BA (License)
 MA (Magister/Master)
 Ph. D (Doctorate)
3. Have you ever gone through a teaching training course on BE?

 At a national level
 At an international Level
 Both national and international
4. Are the oral / aural skills one of your major BE teaching concerns?
 Yes
 No
5. How often do you correct students’ mistakes while they are performing their oral
BE tasks?
86
Appendices Appendix Three
 Never
 Seldom
 Sometimes
 Frequently
 Other
6. Do you check understanding during your oral BE courses?

 Never
 Seldom
 Sometimes
 Frequently
 Always
 Other
7. To what extent do your students grasp the input you provide during course time?
 To 100%
 To 75 %
 To 50 %
 To 25 %
 From 0 to 25 %
8. Do your students participate actively in the oral BE activities and assignments?

 To 100%
 To 75 %
 To 50 %
 To 25 %
 From 0 to 25 %
9. Do you keep a distance from your students during your BE oral classes?
 Yes
 No
10. To what extent do you feel at ease when delivering Oral BE courses?
 To 100%
 To 75 %
 To 50 %
 To 25 %
 From 0 to 25 %
Thank you again for your cooperation!
87
References
References
References
1. AAKER, J, FOURNIER, S & BRASEL, S.A. (2004). “When good brands do
Analysis: The Reconciliation of Quantitative and Qualitative Principles. In Jones.
Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA bad?” .Journal of Consumer Research, 31
(1).
2. BENBASAT, L., GOLDSTEIN, D. & MEAD, M. (1987) . “The Case Research
3. BENFORD, P. B. M. (2008): The Use of Internet-Based Communication by
People with Autism. Published Doctoral Thesis .University Of Nottingham.
4. BROMSETH, J. (2003). “Ethical and Methodological Challenges in Research on
5. BROWN, D. N. 2002. “Of men and mice: Computer-based learning, choice and
intrinsic motivation”. Untele 2002: Proceedings of the 3rd Colloquium.
6. BURNS, A., & JOYCE, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Centre
for English Language Teaching and Research.
7. BYGATE, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford University Press.
8. CHAFE, W & TANNEN, D. (1987). “The Relation between Written and Spoken
9. CHARTERIS, B & JONATHAN, E, T (2001): “A comparative study of metaphor
in Spanish and English financial reporting”, in: English for Specific Purposes 20,
249- 266.
10. CHAUDRON, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
11. COOK, V. (2000), Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (2nd Edition).
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
88
References
12. CORTAZZI, M. & JIN, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the
EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching(pp. 196-
219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. COZBY, P. (1993). Methods in Behavioral Research. Mayfield Pub. Co.
14. CRESWELL, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
15. CROSLING, G., & WARD, I. (2002). Oral communication: the workplace needs
and uses of business graduate employees. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 41-
57.
16. CRYSTal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.
Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge.
17. DONNA, S. (2000). Teach business English. Cambridge. CUP
18. DOUGLAS, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
19. DUDLEY-EVANS, T. and ST JOHN, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for
Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. EDWARDS, N. (2000). Language for business: Effective needs assessment,
syllabus design and materials preparation in a practical ESP case study. English for
Specific Purposes, 19 (3),291-296.
21. ELLIS, M. & JOHNSON, C. (2002). Teaching Business English. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language
22. ELLIS, M. AND JOHNSON, C., 1994. Teaching Business English. Oxford: OUP
23. ELLIS, R. (1991), Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
89
References
24. ELLIS, R. (1997). The Empirical Evaluation Of Language Teaching Materials.
ELT Journal, 51, 36-42.
25. FLANEGIn, M., & RUDD, B. (2000). Integrating communication skills and
business education; Teaching for tomorrow. Journal of Business Education, 1.
26. FUERTES-OLIVERA, P. A., & GOMEZ-MARTINEZ, S. (2004). Empirical
assessment of some learning factors affecting Spanish students of business
English. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 23, 163-180.
27. GILLHAM, B., (2001). Developing a Questionnaire. New York and London:
28. GOFFMAN, E. (1979). Semiotica, New York: New York University Press.
29. GRADDOL, D., 1997. The Future of English? London: The British Council.
30. HARMER, J. (2000), How to Teach English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press.
31. HARMER, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd edition.
Pearson Education Limited.
32. HARMER, J.(2007). The practice of English language teaching .Pearson
Longman.
33. HARRIS, J., 1993. Introducing Writing. London: Penguin. Hedge, T. (2000),
Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. HEMAIS, B. (2001). The discourse of research and practice in marketing journals.
English for SpecificPurposes, 20(1), 39-59.
35. HORWITZ, E. K., HORWITZ, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal,70(ii), 125-132
36. HORWITZ, E.K. (1988), “The beliefs about language learning of beginning
university foreign language students”. In Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.

90
References
37. HORWITZ, E.K., HORWITZ, M.B., & Cope, J.A. (1991), “Foreign Language
classroom anxiety”. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), The Language Anxiety:
From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications (pp. 27-36). New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
38. HUTCHINSON, T. & WATERS, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A
learning-centered approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
39. HYLAND, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses. Harlow: Longman.
40. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book.
London: Routledge.
41. KOCH, A.S., & TERRELL, T.D. (1991), “Affective reactions of foreign language
students to Natural Approach activities and teaching techniques”. In E.K. Horwitz &
D.J. Young (Eds.), The Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom
Implications (pp. 109-126). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Language”. Annual
Review of Anthropology 16.
42. LAZARATON, A. (2001). TEACHING ORAL SKILLS. In M. M. Celce (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 103 – 115). Heinle &
Heinle: Thomson Learning.
43. LINDSAY,C & Knight,P. (2006). Learning and Teaching English: A Course for
teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. MACINTYRE, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A
causal analysis. CommunicationResearch Reports, 11, 135-142.
45. MACINTYRE, P. D., & CHAROS, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as
predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 15(1), 3-26.
91
References
46. MACINTYRE, P. D., & DOUCETTE, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and
action control. System, 38, 161-171.
47. MACKAY, R. & MOUNTFORD, A. (1978). English for specific purposes.
London, Longman.
48. MARCZYK, G. & DEMATTEO, D. & FESTINGER, D., (2002) Essentials of
Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Publication.
49. MCKAY S.L. 2002 Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
50. MILLER. L.S,.(2001). Needs Analysis in a University English Conversation
Program. English Teaching,56,113-139.
51. MUNBY, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. London: Cambridge
University Press. Net-Mediated Communication”. In THORSETH, M. (Ed.),
Applied Ethics.
52. NUNAN, D. (1989), Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge
University Press.
53. NUNAN, D. (1991), Language Teaching Methodology: a textbook for Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. ORR, T. (2002). English for Specific Purposes:Case studies in TESOL practice.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
55. PAKIR,A.(1999).Connecting with English in the context of internationalization
TESOL Quarterly,33(1),103-114.
56. PATTISION, P. (1987), Developing Communicative Skills. Cambridge University
Press.
92
References
57. PATTON, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd edition).
People with Autism. Published Doctoral Thesis .University of Nottingham.Brown
(1994)
58. PICKETT, D.(1986). Business English: Falling between two stools. Comlon, 16-
21.
59. PICKETT, N. & LASTER, A. (1980). Technical English. New York: Harper &
Row Publishers. Principals and Teachers in Urban Black Schools. In South Africa.
South Africa Publication.
60. PUVENESVARY, M. (2003). A Comparative Study of The Criteria Employed By
Academics and Workplace Professionals In Evaluating Business Correspondence.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, Thesis, Department of Linguistics and Applied
Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
61. RAIMES, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing.Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
62. RICHARDS, J. C. & RENANDYA, W. A. Methodology in Language Teaching:
an anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge, 2002.
63. RIVERS, W., and M. Temperly. (1978), A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English
as a Second or Foreign Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
64. RIVERS, W.M. (1981), Teaching Foreign Language Skills. University of Chicago
Press.
65. STEYN, G.M. & Vna WYK, J.N. (1998). Job Satisfaction: Perceptions of Strategy
in Studies of Information Systems”. MIS Quarterly.
66. STREVENS, P. (1988). ESP after Twenty Years: A Re-Appraisal. In M.Tickoo
(Ed.), State of the Art. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre: Singapore.
93
References
67. STREVENS, P. (1977). Special Purpose Language Learning: A Perspective.
Language Teaching And Linguistic Abstracts,10, 145-163.
68. SUDWEEKS; F & SIMOFF, S.J. (1998). “Complementary Explorative Data”
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
69. TSUI, A. (1996), “Reticence and anxiety in second language learning”. In Bailey,
K.M. & Nunan, D.(eds.): Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
70. UR, P. (1997), A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
71. UR, P. (2000), A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
72. WIDDOWSON, H. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
73. WIDDOWSON, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford
University Press.
74. WRIGHT, C (1992). The Benefits of ESP. Cambridge Language Consultations.
75. WRIGHT, John. 1973. Speaking English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76. YATES. S. (1996). “Oral and Written Aspects of Computer Conferencing”. In S.C.
77. YIN, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd Edition). Beverly.
78. ZOU, M (2004). EFL Learners’ Perceptions of In-Class Relationships and Their
Voluntary Responses. In Y. Gao (ed.), The Social Psychology of English Learning
By Chinese College Students. Beijing: Foreign Lang. Teach. Res. Press.
94

Combinaison

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combinaison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Doctoral School of English

Investigating Speaking Performance Deficiency among Learners of Business

A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister in

Chairperson : Dr. Benhattab Abdelkader. Lotfi University of Oran

Finally, I want to acknowledge any mistakes in this dissertation. Despite all my

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father Addi Hadj

To the memory of my grand mother

To my wife and my little prince Mohamed El Amine

To my brothers and sisters

To the whole family

To my colleagues at the department of Commercial Sciences

Chapter One: Review of the Related Literature

1.5.6.1 Learners-Centered Difficulties 22

Chapter Two: Research Design and Data Collection

2.4.4.7 Dynamics of the Questionnaire 41

Chapter Three: Findings and Recommendations

Business English is relatively a new subject in Algeria. This research investigates

Table 1.1 ESP in terms of ‘Absolute’ and ‘Variable’ Characteristics

Table 2.2 The Actual Teachers’ Population

Figure 1.1 ESP Historical Movements

Figure 1.5 Variables for EFL Learners’ Reticence / Ur (1997)

Graph 3.1 Experience with Teaching BE

It is self-evident to acknowledge that globalization, competitiveness and the

Speaking learning difficulties facing foreign-language students are a most

This research work reports on the findings of a questionnaire survey of the

Drawing on various theoretical perspectives and research, the students' perceived

Chapter One: Review of the Related Literature

This chapter presents a comprehensive overview of the literature pertaining to

Discussing aspects of Business English language teaching will hopefully be

1.2 Surveying the Terrain of English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

1.2 .2 What is ESP?

• the demands of a “brave new world,”

• a revolution in linguistics, and

Figure 1.1: ESP Historical Movements (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987)

“ESP is, basically, language learning which has its focus on

“English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is research and

Absolute ESP is defined to meet specific needs of the learners

ESP is centered on the language appropriate to these activities in terms

Variable ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines

ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology

ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level

. ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students

Most ESP courses assume some basic knowledge of the language

Table 1.1: ESP in terms of ‘Absolute’ and ‘Variable’ Characteristics

Although ESP is a controversial issue7, there is much misinterpretation concerning

1.3 Business English

Business English is a widely used term among practioners than theorists or

colleges, institutions and schools to students interested in proficiency and mastery in

1.3.2 ESP Divisions

Context is central in ESP. In fact, ESP activities have to be presented by

It is because of the relevance of context in an ESP teaching learning situation, ESP

EAP ESP EOP

Figure 1.2: ESP Divisions (Munby, 1978)

“English for General Purposes (EGP) is essentially the English

1.3.3 Business English and ESP

‘Business English differs from other varieties of ESP in that it is

At present, BE is highly recognized among the scholarly community as one of the

Therefore, in line with the growing popularity of BE, it is of great significance to

1.3.4 Business English: A Definition

Figure 1.3: Business English Fundamental Features13

• Purposefulness14 : : interactions in a business setting have a sense of purpose that

• Social Dimensions: in the business world, communication is always influenced by

It may be argued that BE characteristics should be incorporated in any course or