The Instruction of English as a Second Language in the Workplace as Conducted in the
United States
The United States has moved from an industrial society to one of information
technology, making it difficult for the nonnative English speaker to obtain a higher
paying job. This segment of the population is part of the third of the job applicants who,
in 2001, failed to possess necessary reading and writing competencies to get a good job
(Marshall 2). Workplace English instruction continues to evolve, addressing ongoing
issues such as deciding the purpose behind workplace instruction, and the appropriate
pedagogy of it. Currently, objective assessment seems to be the best approach.
History shows the British realized the need for some sort of on-site job training in
the 1970s when a few European countries were hosting foreign workers. They found that
traditional language instruction (grammar, style, etc.) was not as important as
“functional” communication, or using job-specific words and concepts, in order to
accomplish the job (Grognet, “Integrating” 2). By 1964, the United States (U.S.) had a
program already in place (The Economic Opportunity Act) to offset adult illiteracy. In
1966, Congress legislated the Adult Education Act which provided employment training
to include people “with limited English speaking proficiency” (Grognet, “Integrating” 1).
Similar to the British in the 1970s, the U.S. experienced the need for training at the
workplace because of the tremendous flow of Indochinese immigrants. This initiated the
birth of a type of training for those for whom English was a second language (ESL).
Unlike the British, the States’ program included extra training for ESL learners for
enough proficiency to handle life situations such as “speaking on the telephone” or
“reading a want ad.” Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, these “curricula” were seen to be
effective more for the “workplace” rather than the “workforce.” Employees could answer
rote-type questions (“How are tools stored?”), but never really trained to participate in
task analysis. As more assessment was conducted regarding the life-long impact the
programs provided for ESL learners, learners became more active in their education and
the programs became “learner centered” (Grognet, “Integrating” 2-3).
Gradually, the issue of purpose arose: should the work-training programs be
targeted more for the worker’s overall development, or be targeted more towards making
them better at the job? “Advocates of workforce education” wanted the “whole person”
developed, and “advocates of workplace education” spoke up for “patterns” of instruction
being the primary requirement needed on the job. Then the pendulum began to swing.
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, training began to take on characteristics of both
agendas, and, depending upon the workplace, landed somewhere in the middle (Grognet,
“Integrating” 3).
The U.S. Department of Labor released the SCANS report (Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1992) which was written by business and
education experts to answer the question: “What workplace skills are needed?” this was
the government’s attempt to define the different “contexts” in which people worked, and
included specifications deemed crucial for the workplace such as “basic skills, higher
order, intellectual skills, and motivational or character traits” (Grognet, “Integrating” 45). In its further efforts to educate the adult illiterate and nonnative speakers, the U.S.
Government sponsored (not all inclusive): The National Institute for Literacy Act, 1991,
and its Equipped for the Future “initiative,” 1994; the Comprehensive Adult Student
Assessment System, 1996; The Workforce Investment Act and The Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act, 1998 (Van Dozer and Florez 4). In 2002, the U.S. Department of
Education appropriated over $565 million dollars for adult literacy programs (Van Dozer
and Florez 5).
The government has not been the only entity working to deal with the unqualified
worker predicament, and the difficulties present when language is an issue (hindrance)
regarding communication and production. Private industry began developing “in-house”
trainers, utilizing college, university and community on-site programs and an
entrepreneurship developed out of the learning business; independent instructors
developed programs who sold their services to train ESL and English speakers of other
languages (ESOL) learners. In 1983, Tru Lingua, an independent instructor of language,
began to provide Spanish language instruction to English-speaking management at FMI,
Inc., California, so the management and the Spanish workers could communicate. Then
she began English classes for Spanish-speaking workers, and VESL, or vocational ESL
programs, took root (Maynard 1-3).
It would seem a good idea for companies to offer workplace classes in English.
Efforts by nonnative employees are usually obstructed by such factors as obligation to
family, transportation difficulties, trying to work, or all of these. The U.S. Census Bureau
(2003) reported that at the start of the “21st century,” 12% of the U.S. workforce were
nonnative Americans, and over half of them held low-income positions such as food
service, construction and factories, to name a few. Their achievements were, and still are,
commensurate with their level of English proficiency. The results are “noncontinuous”
work or base-paying jobs (Burt, “Issues”).
The cost of some programs are based on “per hour” charges; others may be a flat
fee as it varies by service, and this cost hits the company’s bottom line (Maynard 5). One
dilemma is in trying to determine the length of time it takes for nonnative speakers to
learn English, while assessing the level of reading and writing proficiency needed. Also,
employers are disappointed when they do not see accountability on the learner’s part, for
example, when the employees go back to speaking their native language on breaks, and
even on the job. As a result, companies will not renew the instruction when the money
runs out (Burt, “Issues”).
Some companies do not see language barriers as a hindrance because they simply
place nonnative speaking employees on jobs where they usually do not interact with
customers, such as in dishwashing jobs or in the laundry rooms (Burt, “Selling”). But the
“perceived lack of benefit to the company” could be a misunderstanding or an improper
assessment on the part of poor supervision regarding the needs of employees. For
example, if upper management hears a Spanish-speaking employee explaining in Spanish
the delicate procedures to handle a piece of equipment, the supervisor may not be aware
that explaining “abstract concepts and opinions” in a native language shows that the
employee is endeavoring to maintain a “proficiency” on his job, rather than subjecting
himself and others to the dangers involved in “linguistic deficiency” (Burt, “Issues”).
Research shows that companies who do teach English at the workplace are
adamant about doing so. Schneider Foods, Canada, conducts workplace classes because
they believe that “good employee communication skills are essential elements of an
efficient, smooth –running workplace.” Examples of the training “objectives” are
employee accuracy of “job-specific language,” as well as “report writing and safety
procedures” (Workplaces Success). Superior Coffee Co., Illinois, states that because of
English education in their company, they have “recouped $100,--- of project expenses
through reduction in rework and paperwork error” (Benoit). Newark Pacific Paperboard
Co., California, began their classes in the 1980s and say that “they’re worth every
penny.” The general manager explains that the classes were started as a “safety measure,”
providing clear communication and understanding regarding the supervision and
production of the plant. Other companies point out that fluency in English is a must when
their employees deal with clients, either local or global (Dutton 4-5).
So what does all this mean in determining a workplace pedagogy for ESL/ESOL
learners? Allene Guss Grognet, author of numerous publications for the Center for
Applied Linguistics, states in her article, “Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating
Workplace ESL Programs,” that “The needs analysis is perhaps the most crucial of the
steps, because the remaining steps are based on it” (1). This assessment covers such areas
as the tasks employees perform, and what weaknesses are perceived by supervisors and
ESL/ESOL learners. When designing the curriculum, usually the first considerations are
any specific labor requirements as governed by “each worksite or occupation,” and
Grognet divides these into categories; some are general, others describe a higher level of
thinking demonstrated by employees as they advance in English proficiency (3-4). She
suggests that the “lesson plan” be designed according to the original assessment, for
example, what it takes to read manuals, safely run the equipment, demonstrate fluent
communication, and so on. Concerning writing and speaking, Grognet refers to
traditional rhetorical ideas, for example: “make the topic/idea clear;” “rewrite sentences
in the subject-verb-object word order;” “change sentence [from] the passive voice to the
active voice…” (4). Another issue brought back to light is that of grammar, which
Grognet sets aside in favor of “functions of language” to be a true “learner-centered”
environment (5).
The issue of grammar in ESL/ESOL instruction has been one of some debate. In
her journal article “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response
to Turscott (1996),” Dana Ferris rebuts absolutes in John Truscott’s article “The Case
Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes” (1-11). Truscott boldly claims that
grammatical mistakes should not be addressed at all in student’s work, that correcting
grammar is “harmful” to the “natural” process of “language learning” (Ferris 3). He
believes that grammar correction can be “stressful and demotivating” to students and
burden down teachers with extra work; Ferris agrees with the inconvenience to teachers
(2-3). Truscott contends that most nonnative speakers do not comprehend explanation for
grammatical errors, and do not remember the significance of corrections to affect, as
Ferris puts it, “long-term student improvement” (2-3). There is some agreement between
Truscott and Ferris, and both use “research” to support their claims. Ferris argues that if
“selective, prioritized, and clear” corrections are imparted, as she confronts Truscott’s
definition of “‘error correction,’” this does provide welcomed guidance for language
acquisition by certain students. Ferris contends that Truscott conforms research to support
his thesis and “disregard[s] research that contradicted” his stance (4). Ferris believes that
if correction involves the consideration of “patterns” of errors instead of picking apart
individual sentences, that is, in the timing of feed back, contextual development is not
disturbed, and if the importance of grammar is “thoughtfully” reinforced, many students
increase their proficiency to the point where they “self-edit” (7-8).
As more situations are observed, clearly, a functional and demonstrative use of
the English language is preferred over grammatical correctness. In her article partially
titled “English That Works: Preparing Adult English Language Learners,” educator and
noted author Brigitte Marshall includes a journal entry from a nonnative speaker
indicating the successful application of basic principles in the workplace. The employee
writes that she had learned in a class the importance of taking notes and that her employer
agreed to let her use them. An excerpt reads: “I telled her [the boss] when I don’t
understand I’m confused to explain me again and I repeat to her what I understand to
know if it’s right or wrong. I asked her if sometimes can I see my notes to check if I’m
doing it right” (1). Marshall interprets this as evidence that the employee does not
comprehend grammar yet, but she has acquired an understanding of “clarification and
restating instruction,” skills that will take her further than grammatical expertise (1).
Again, assessment is involved here. Her job requires her to have a certain skill, in the
case, running a cash register, and she has shown that she can perform because of such
basic principles as note-taking and clearly restating the procedures (1). Marshall exhorts
instructors of ESL/ESOL adult learners to use “classroom simulations,” letting people do
what they already know how to do, and transferring their knowledge into workplace
situations using everyday words (money, food, asking for assistance) in meaningful ways
(3).
Other techniques that are recommended are the use of job-related vocabulary:
“‘The forklift is in the plant,’” as opposed to, “‘The book is on the table,’” which is
normally used in traditional learning scenarios to teach the present tense (Maynard 2). To
instruct in the past tense, the workplace classroom might discuss the “company’s
history,” rather than just using isolated and less meaningful grammar lessons (Maynard
2). Home Depot, Inc. utilizes an on-site program called “Literacy Works,” planned by the
Seattle-King County Workforce Development Council. One way the program is
“customized” for the business is by using Home Depot’s safety book as one of the texts.
Also, classes are held at convenient times such as lunch time (Tice).
The Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages (INTESOL)
report in their newsletter that a particular Indiana company (no name given) was faced
with the need to increase the English proficiency of their staff of professionals who must
communicate with people around the world. After interviews, observations and
assessments by INTESOL, an on-site class curriculum was developed which was
incorporated into the company’s “regular training program” (Duerksen 1, 5). A few of the
curriculum’s components consist of “macro skills, like pronunciation” (accent reduction)
and “presentation skills;” and “micro skills, like grammar, syntax, semantics,” and
transitions. Many companies are following suit for nonnative employee advancement
where, initially, grammar was not the main focus (Duerksen 5). Research shows that the
same type of instruction can be taught at other workplace sites, just at different levels;
whatever the assessment calls for “which contributes to a more productive and effective
work force” (Duerksen 6). (See also Mary Alice Benoit’s “ESL Program Speaks to Needs
of Employers,” Chicago Tribune, Oct. 11, 1999, page 3.)
The United States will continue to welcome immigrants; therefore, the need for
English instruction within the workforce community will continue. The search to
compose thee workplace pedagogy seems ongoing, and the pervasive, logical approach is
through assessment. Our tax dollars are a large part of this endeavor, and if anything can
be added to job-specific training, such as lifestyle improvement or social acceptance,
those will be at the mercy of the company’s budget and allowable time without hindering
productivity. I agree with the “functional” philosophy. If I had my own business, I would
need employees who could understand me, and communicate with me (and read and
write) in the necessary terms that relate to my business. So, as an instructor, I would
begin to instruct within these pertinent and essential guidelines. Then, based upon
“assessment,” I would include bits of grammar instruction as students progressed in their
proficiency.
Works Cited
Benoit, Mary Alice. “ESL Program Speaks to Needs of Employers.” Chicago Tribune 11
Oct 1999, Northwest ed.: 3. Proquest. 11 July 2004
<http://webfeat.epixasp.com:5554/pJYjB1486/url=http://proquest.umi.com>.
Burt, Miriam. “Selling Workplace ESL Instructional Programs.” Sept 2002. Extending
English as a Foreign Language. 11 July 2002 <www.xefl.com/article76.html>.
---. NCLE Brief: “Issues in Improving Immigrant Worker’s English Language Skills.”
Dec 2003. Center for Applied Linguistics. 11 July 2004
<www.cal.org/ncle/digests>.
Duerksen, Aye Nu. “ESP in the Workplace.” Newsletter of Indiana Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages 22.1 (2003). 11 July 2004
<www.intesol.org/intesol_mar03.pdf>.
Dutton, Gail. “One Workforce, Many Languages.” Management Review 87.11 (1998):
42-48. Student Resource Center. 11 July 2004
<http://webfeat.epixasp.com:5554/>.
Ferris, Dana. “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to
Truscott (1996).” Journal for Second Language Writing 8.1 Ed. Llona Leki and
Tony Silva. Stamford: Albex, 1999: 1-11.
Grognet, Allene Guss. ERIC Q&A: “Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating Workplace
ESL Programs.” 1-10. Center for Applied Linguistics. June 1996. 13 July 2004
<www.cal.org/ncle/digests>.
---. ERIC Q&A: “Integrating Employment Skills in Adult ESL Instruction.” 1-8. Center
for Applied Linguistics. June 1997. 13 July 2004 <www.cal.org/ncle/digests>.
Marshall, Brigitte. Q&A: “English That Works: Preparing Adult English Language
Learners for Success in the Workforce and Community.” 1-9. Center for Applied
Linguistics. July 2002. Adapted from Preparing for Success. By Brigitte Marshall.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1 Aug 2002. 13 July 2004
<www.cal.org/ncle/digests>.
Maynard, Roberts. “Improving English Skills.” Nation’s Business 81.5 (1993): 1-6.
Student Resource Center. 11 July 2004 <http://webfeat.epixasp.com:5554/>.
Tice, Carol. “Firms Offered Help with English Training for Staff.” Puget Sound Business
Journal. Printed ed. (2002): 1-2. 17 July 2004
<www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/02/25/newscolumn3.html>.
Truscott, John. “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A
Response to Ferris.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.2 Ed. Llona Leki and
Tony Silva. Stamford: Ablex, 1999: ???
Van Duzer, Carol, and Mary Ann Cunningham Florez. “Adult English Language
Instruction in the 21st Century.” National Center for ESL Literacy Education.
(2003). “Adult English Language Instruction in the 21st Century.” Washington,
D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 17 July 2004
<www.cal.org/ncle/languageinstruction.htm>.
“Workplace Success.” Window on the Workplace 1.1 (Spring 2002): 2. Centre for
Language Training and Assessment (CLTA). 17 July 2004
<www.clta.on.ca/work-place/vlil-2002-p.2.html>.