Languages for Specific Purposes Business Curriculum Creation and Implementation in the United States
Abstract
After the United States emerged as the major world economic leader following World War II, language curricula for specific purposes in international business were put into practice at the college and university levels. This article documents the work of the major players in the development of coursework and materials for business languages for specific purposes (LSP) designed for instruction of the more commonly taught languages (CTLs) in the United States. The article also describes the more recent implementation of LSP curricula in the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), such as Japanese and Chinese, and the various federal grants that aided in the development of instruction in these languages. The impact of the Centers for International Business Education and Research (CIBERs) and the positive effects of the Proficiency Guidelines (1986) and the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (2006), both developed and supported by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), provide a deeper explanation for the increased number of LCTLs currently being taught. Also described are the obstacles to continued implementation of these efforts and the need both for expansion of these efforts to precollege levels and for more theoretically-based research in the field.
AFTER THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNITED States from World War II as the major world economic leader, the creation and implementation of language curricula in the United States for specific purposes in the international business world assumed increased importance. This article documents many of the major language for specific purposes (LSP) curricular developments for business in more commonly taught languages (CTLs) since the 1940s and describes the more recent emergence of LSP curricula in the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) in the United States. It describes business LSP programs developed at the graduate and undergraduate level, the importance of grant funding, and the impact of the federally funded Centers for International Business Education and Research (CIBERs) on the development of LSP. In addition, it documents the important effects of general language teaching trends on the field of LSP, discusses the need to broaden the LSP research base and take the needs of the stakeholders and served audience into account, lists the field's current needs and priorities, discusses challenges to the implementation of LSP curriculum creation for business, and, finally, poses LSP curricular areas in need of further research. Because the current economic crisis in the United States threatens the continuation of many of the educational innovations in these areas, it becomes increasingly important to document the past advancements made in the field.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
In the early years of the development of LSP curricula in the United States, the emphasis was on the CTLs: Spanish, French, and German. The implementation of curricula for languages for international business and the professions in the United States began following World War II, in 1946, at the American Institute of Foreign Trade, better known as Thunderbird, located on a former Air Force base in Glendale, Arizona. This private institution, also called over the years the American Graduate School of International Management (AGSIM), the Garvin School of International Management, and, currently, the Thunderbird School of Global Management, initially developed a language curriculum limited to a focus on business Spanish or Portuguese for Latin America. The establishment of this curriculum coincided with the publication of an important handbook by the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP), entitled Handbook on the Teaching of Spanish and Portuguese, with Special Reference to Latin America (H. G. Doyle, 1945), which provided the impetus for expanding the study of the Spanish language for doing business with Spanish-speaking countries other than Spain. In 1969, the AATSP produced A Handbook for Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (Walsh, 1969), which established a base for the preparation of teachers of both languages. This publication served as a model for the organization to support a 1998 volume, titled Spanish and Portuguese for Business and the Professions, which met the need for outlining the processes involved in the development of curricula for specific purposes other than teaching (Fryer & Guntermann, 1998).
In the early 1990s, the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG) and the American Association of Teachers of French (AATF) recognized the need to develop curricula for teaching their languages for use in the global business world. The AATG produced the Handbook on Business German: A Practical Guide to Business German as an Academic Discipline (Keck, 1990) and the Handbook for German and Technology (Cothran, 1994). In addition, in the mid-1990s, the AATF published two volumes related to this topic: Issues and Methods in French for Business and Economic Purposes (Cummins, 1995) and Making Business French Work: Modes, Materials, Methodologies (Loughrin-Sacco & Abrate, 1998). Although LSP curricula for business would be driven by the CTLs in the last decade of the 20th century, once more and more people connected their Windows-enabled PCs with that global communications platform, which spread even more quickly after 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down (and China and India started opening to the global economy), there was nothing to stop the digital representation of everything (Friedman, 2007, pp. 57–58).
As the new millennium dawned and the world became smaller through new forms of telecommunication and Internet connectivity, more nations would find their economies driven into the world economy by the policies of multinational companies, thus creating needs for the business language skills and knowledge of other LCTLs and cultures.
The United States suddenly began to realize the depth of its global interconnectivity after the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center and became vitally aware of the need for communication not only across Latin American and European borders, but also across geographic, linguistic, and cultural areas populated by more diverse and non-Western peoples (Friedman, 2007). One of the changes with the most global impact has been the rise of China as a world economic power. During the late 1970s, the Chinese created new economic development strategies to expand their network of trading partners. They decentralized their trade institutions and incorporated a legal framework that facilitated foreign economic relations and commerce and allowed (a) direct foreign investment, (b) the meteoric expansion of foreign trade, (c) the importation of technology, and (d) membership in international foreign economic organizations, including the World Trade Organization in 2001. “Since the initiation of economic reforms in 1979, China has become one of the world's fastest growing economies” (Morrison, 2008, p. i) and has gradually become integrated into the global economy. By virtue of China being the largest market in the world, the acquisition of the Chinese language for business purposes by potential business partners has grown considerably in the last 15 years.
The Chinese Language Teachers Association (CLTA) is a professional organization organized in 1962 as a group parallel to the AATs in order to provide assistance to teachers in the study of the Chinese language and culture. Since its establishment, the CLTA has had to recognize and respond to the demand for learning this language and becoming familiar with its cultural context, a demand brought about by the growing stature of Chinese in the world and in the development of the global economy. Due to the mounting interest in the acquisition of Chinese-language skills in the world, there are now increasing numbers of CLTA members among teachers and students of Chinese at primary and secondary schools (CLTA, 2010). Likewise, discussions and presentations about the teaching of Chinese have increased at the annual business language conference for language teachers sponsored by CIBER directors.
As a result of the demand for learning about the Chinese language and culture, the Chinese government created the nonprofit Confucius Institute (Hong, 2005), an equivalent of Spain's Cervantes Institute, France's Alliance Française, the British Council, Germany's Goethe-Institut, Portugal's Instituto Camões, Italy's Società Dante Alighieri, and Japan's Japan Foundation. The goals of the Confucius Institute and CLTA are to increase skills and knowledge of Chinese business, language, and culture throughout the world. In addition, Chinese-language instruction has benefited from the recently developed Language Flagship Programs at the graduate and undergraduate university levels, which are now designing, supporting, and implementing a new format for delivering advanced language education by means of a partnership among the federal government, education, and business (see Spring, this issue). The Language Flagship endeavors to graduate students who will become the next generation of international professionals, and who are able to communicate at a superior level in one of the languages critical to U.S. competitiveness and security.
The important role of the Japanese language and culture for business and trade relations has long been recognized. In 1972, the Japanese government established the Japan Foundation for the purpose of disseminating Japanese culture internationally through arts and cultural exchanges and by promoting Japanese-language education. This effort was solidified in October 1980 with the establishment, under U.S. law, of the United States–Japan Foundation (2011) by the Chairman of the Japan Shipbuilding Industry Foundation (now the Nippon Foundation). The latter was the first organization to specialize in international cultural exchanges between Japan and the United States and is controlled by a board of eminent Japanese and U.S. business, governmental, and university leaders. Through the Japan Foundation, the Master's in International Business Studies (MIBS) program at the University of South Carolina received the Staff Expansion Grant, the Teaching Material Supporting Grant, and the Library Grant to support the early development of their Japanese-language program. In addition, the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO; 2010) has supported some of the MIBS Japanese business language efforts (Y. Sakakibara, personal communication, July 27, 2011).
Early University Language for Specific Purposes Programs at the Graduate Level
Although the American Institute of Foreign Trade (Thunderbird) had led the way in the private educational sector in LSP language courses for business in the 1970s, universities and colleges were slow to follow suit. At the graduate level, the first public institution to commit heavily to development of LSP curricula for business was the University of South Carolina's main campus in Columbia, which initiated the MIBS degree in 1974. During the initial 12-week summer of intensive language learning—in which instruction was based on the instructional practices developed and designed in the Foreign Service Institutes to develop language skills for government personnel—outstanding graduate students in business were admitted into the program to study either German or Spanish (Fryer, 1975). After an initial 12-week intensive summer language program at the Columbia, South Carolina, campus, graduate students who began their language studies with limited exposure to the language joined more advanced language students to complete both a fall and a spring 3-credit hour business language course in German or Spanish. During the second summer following enrollment, these graduate students traveled to the Carl Duisberg Training Center in Germany or the Escuela de Administración y Empresas e Instituto Tecnológico (EAFIT) in Medellín, Colombia, where they completed another 12-week intensive LSP program for business taught by native speakers.
The University of South Carolina's MIBS program expanded over a 30-year period to include instruction in French, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Arabic (Joiner & Kuhne, 1981). Although most were 2-year language programs, Japanese and Chinese were extended to 3-year programs, and the Russian and Korean programs required intermediate-level proficiency prior to admission. The key element in all these programs was the requirement that all students complete a 6-month business internship in a country where their chosen language was spoken. The Language Flagship programs also offer immersion internships for graduate and undergraduate students through a public–private partnership with international organizations and corporations (http://www.thelanguageflagship.org/).
With the establishment of the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania in 1983 (http://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu), students were able to combine a Master of Arts (MA) in International Studies from the School of Arts and Sciences with the Wharton School's Master of Business Administration (MBA). Like their counterparts at Thunderbird and the University of South Carolina, the majority of Lauder students entering the program had previous work experience, but the Lauder students, by virtue of being required to have a high level of language proficiency for entrance into the program, had the additional benefit of having studied or lived in countries where their chosen foreign languages were spoken.
The Thunderbird School of Global Management continued as a leader in the graduate training of international business leaders with language expertise during the decade of the 1990s and, as indicated earlier, this institution still holds the highest ranking among graduate programs in international business.1 In the 1990s, the programs at Thunderbird, the University of South Carolina, and the University of Pennsylvania served as the basic models for development of graduate program LSP curricula for business, not only for the United States but also for Europe and other regions of the world (Voght & Grosse, 1998). However, in the early part of the 21st century, Thunderbird, like the University of South Carolina, outsourced the majority of its foreign language instruction at lower proficiency levels of instruction to educational institutions abroad. In addition, a number of the U.S.-based instructors who had emerged as leaders in LSP for business instruction in the United States during the decade of the 1990s moved to other institutions or retired.
Undergraduate-Level Language for Specific Purposes Programs
The earliest LSP curriculum development at the undergraduate level in the United States began at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) in 1979. The Language and International Trade Program at EMU was the first undergraduate program in the United States to require coursework in economics, business language, and area studies plus an internship. EMU also sponsored an annual conference for language teachers that stressed interdisciplinary coursework for international business and the professions. In 1982, EMU launched the Conference on Language and Communication for World Business and the Professions in order to address the need for teachers to improve their skills in teaching languages for business (Voght & Grosse, 1998). This conference provided vital leadership until 1997 when it evolved into the CIBER conference, funded federally through Title VI.
The CIBER Business Language Conference first took place in 1999 at San Diego State University (SDSU); it met the following year (2000) at Thunderbird, and in 2001, it returned to SDSU. Thereafter, it was sponsored by collaborating universities with CIBERs, such as the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (2002) and, more recently, the University of Pennsylvania (2010) and the University of South Carolina (2011). Currently, the future of this conference is in jeopardy due to a mandated 57 percent budget reduction for the federal fiscal year beginning in October 2011. These conferences have offered business language instructors an opportunity to share information on up-to-date curricular developments and language instructional practices as applied to business. Although these conferences and other special programs offered through the CIBERs make instructional and research assistance available for all levels of instruction, the focus of the funding has been at the undergraduate or postgraduate levels rather than on K–12 or community college programs.
Undergraduate LSP programs began to increase rapidly in number in the 1990s. In spite of the development of a number of programs initiating their LSP instruction at the beginning or intermediate levels, the predominant level at which the CTLs initiated their LSP sequences was, by far, at the 3rd-year level of college or university studies, as indicated by textbook sales and the publication of second editions of LSP textbooks. This level was equivalent to that of the introductory literature course for students majoring in these languages. Given that the bulk of students studying LSP in colleges and universities began their major sequences at this level, the textbook publishing companies found it cost effective to begin funding second editions of LSP textbook materials for students at the 3rd year of language study. In this way, undergraduate interdisciplinary programs began to develop a sequential series of LSP courses building on the initial 3rd-year language course and often began offering a second LSP course as a followup. Several other undergraduate programs have distinguished themselves for their LSP curriculum development following EMU's early lead.
One of these early leaders was Clemson University's Language and International Trade Program, which was established in 1987 with the aid of a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE).2 One of the special features of this program was that it focused LSP instruction on industries of importance to the State of South Carolina and the region—applied international economics, international trade, textiles, and tourism. Another institution taking advantage of the federal funding that had become available was SDSU, which acquired more than 2 million dollars in grants to implement student scholarships, study abroad, research, academic programs, and faculty development for its LSP curriculum for business, thus establishing the largest undergraduate LSP program in the United States and one of the nation's best (Hergert, 1997).
In the first decade of the 21st century, curricula were developed involving interdisciplinary teaching and collaborative agreements across national borders for university majors in international business. One such program is MEXUS, the SDSU transnational dual degree with Mexican universities. In addition, two transnational triple-degree programs in international business at SDSU became available. In these programs, undergraduate students earn degrees from SDSU as well as from universities in Mexico and Canada (CaMexUs program), or they may receive degrees from SDSU, Mexico, and Chile (PanAmerica program) (SDSU, 2010–2011, pp. 296–297).
Grant Funding
Faculty at SDSU continued and increased the institution's successful tradition in grant writing and subsequently shared that expertise with colleagues at workshops and conferences throughout the country (Loughrin-Sacco, 2010). Many of their major projects received assistance from grant opportunities through the United States Office of Education, FIPSE, the Exxon Foundation, Title VI, and Fulbright-Hayes. Title VI primarily provides domestically-based language and area training, research, and outreach, while Fulbright-Hays supports opportunities to develop language and area studies skills in CTLs and LCTLs in settings outside the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Title VI was established in 1958 as the language development portion of the National Defense Education Act and funded (a) language area centers for expansion of postsecondary instruction through fellowships, (b) research supporting language learning methodology and specialized teaching materials, and (c) language institutes to provide advanced language training.
Today, these language area centers, or National Resource Centers (NRCs), Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships, and International Research and Studies remain critical for providing special language and culture instruction to cope with global trends and needs. The NRC institutions instruct nearly a quarter of all students enrolled in LCTLs and nearly 60% of the students learning CTLs. Title VI/Fulbright-Hays funding has supported the development of more than half the textbooks now in use in the LCTLs. It also funds seven separate but interrelated programs, including the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program, the Business and International Education Program, and CIBERs.3 The case for federal funding of LSP for business was best expressed by the Senior U.S. Office of Education Program Officer responsible for the Title VI funding for business.
It is crucial that students of business have an understanding of the international context. Within the last 15 years, the world economy has dramatically changed. In order to succeed, U.S. companies must engage in export and work with counterparts in foreign countries. Global economic and political realities mean there is an ever greater need for more international expertise—especially in the business curriculum. (Easton, 2010, p. 4)
Impact of Centers for International Business Education and Research
After the final authorization for the CIBERs was secured, there were only four original locations divided geographically around the country: the University of South Carolina in the South, the University of Pittsburgh in the East, the University of Michigan in the Midwest, and a joint center in the West—SDSU and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). These centers were created under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 in order to augment the nation's capability for cross-cultural communication and economic growth. These CIBERs are administered by the U.S. Office of Education under Title VI, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and are designed to provide the manpower and informational needs of U.S. business by increasing international education, language training, and research capacities of universities across the United States.
Today, 33 universities are designated as CIBERs that serve as regional and national resources to business, students, and academics. Together, the CIBERs have formed a powerful network focused on improving U.S. competitiveness and providing comprehensive service and programs that help U.S. business succeed in global markets. The CIBERs have an official Web site (CIBERweb),4 which provides information about the legislation that formed this network, an outline of the goals of this initiative, the directory of the 33 CIBERs, the U.S. Department of Education administrator for this program, and all CIBER special training programs and opportunities for both business and language faculty development.
Diverse and Innovative Business Language Programs
As the number of CIBERs receiving funding increased from 4 to 33 over the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010, the approaches to business language curriculum development became more and more diverse and innovative. Two of the most creative developments have been at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) and at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), where the faculty have developed unique programs. UNCC formed its program despite not being funded as a CIBER, and although Georgia Tech is CIBER funded, it does not fit the traditional mold of a major state-supported flagship institution where CIBERs are normally located. These may be factors that have given these two programs the freedom of latitude to innovate and the institutional support to be able to make major curricular changes.
There is no doubt that despite the recent reports from the Modern Language Association (MLA, 2007) calling for institutional reform in higher education to be more responsive to the needs of students seeking employment in a new global society, faculty at traditional major research institutions, driven by the academic graduates of traditional MA and PhD programs in those same institutions, have been reluctant to embrace such change, and some have been willfully obstructionist toward such curricular reform. This fact is readily noticeable, given that, in a good number of cases, the LSP instruction for business students has been outsourced or relegated to faculty without political clout. In some cases, critical personnel responsible for the instruction have failed to receive tenure or have not had their slotted positions replaced following retirement. This resistance to change becomes even more common in economically difficult times, such as the recent financial crisis.
The Spanish programs in the Department of Languages and Cultures at UNCC have been designed, over a period of years, to expand to the point where a series of options is available to students at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels. The options include (a) a BA degree in Spanish with two tracks—literature/culture or applied language (translating, business Spanish, or linguistics); (b) an undergraduate and a graduate certificate in translating; and (c) an MA in Spanish with two tracks—language, literature, and culture or translating and translation studies. M. S. Doyle (2010) explains that:
Curricular vision and implementation must always keep a finger on the pulse of the times in order to best prepare students for the world they will encounter upon graduation and in order for academic programs to retain and strengthen their relevance and centrality. (p. 84)
Currently, the developments reflected in numerous programs for LSP extend beyond business to include language for various professions. For example, the University of Colorado offers a BA in Spanish for the Professions, UCLA has a Spanish and Community and Culture track in its Spanish degree, and Arizona State University offers a Spanish minor and certificate for the professions. Long (2010) looked in depth at several major Spanish for the Professions undergraduate programs, including the University of Colorado–Boulder, the University of Tennessee, the University of Maryland, Mesa State College, and Albion College.
Cothran (2010) described the LSP for business curriculum at Georgia Tech as a Bachelor of Science in Applied Language and Intercultural Studies with separate language concentrations in Japanese and Spanish. Advanced communication, creative thinking, and intercultural skills applied to the areas of technology, industry, media, and society are stressed. Key components include both (a) a strong background in a second discipline (12 credits) such as architecture, and (b) a foreign language with a study-abroad cluster (12 credits). The Georgia Tech International Plan is integrated into the student's major during the entire course of the degree program. Students combine international studies courses with courses focused on developing proficiency in a second language. They are also required to complete an international experience of at least 6 months, as well as a capstone course (senior seminar), which is an opportunity for students to demonstrate that they have achieved the learning goals as determined by the educational institution and major department. Also available at Georgia Tech (as in other institutions) are cooperative agreements with institutions abroad, service-learning, internship experiences, and summer intensive study abroad, usually offering interactive experiences with business and industry in the target country or the target language.
The Monterey Institute of International Studies, now operating as a graduate school of Middlebury College, has always included high-level language instruction as an important component of its academic programs. Its language studies programs at the graduate level are content based in professional areas such as international business, public administration, international environmental policy, international policy, and nonproliferation and terrorism studies, as well as translation and interpretation, conference interpretation, language studies, translation and localization management, and teaching English to speakers of other languages/teaching foreign languages. The language courses employ authentic contemporary articles and materials instead of centering their curricula around textbooks. These courses reflect the Monterey model in which various language groups are taught simultaneously in multiple language sections. Each section focuses on a special topic such as issues in the European Union or green business, which each group explores from its own language and cultural perspective during the semester. In addition, the groups meet jointly and share findings in plenary discussion sessions interpreted by students in their conference interpretation program. Languages available in the MA in International Policy Studies and in the Management degree programs include Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish.
Effects of General Foreign Language Teaching Trends on Language for Specific Purposes Programs
The LSP programs at UNCC, Georgia Tech, and the Monterey Institute of International Studies are positive reflections of some of the general changes in the teaching of foreign languages that were taking place in the United States from the 1980s through the first decade of the 21st century. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) developed the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1986) for academic purposes as an adaptation of the scale used by the Foreign Service Institute (2010). The proficiency movement was critical for LSP for business because it moved the language teaching profession away from an emphasis on grammatical accuracy and writing and into the real world of oral communication so prevalent in global commerce.
In the 1990s, as ACTFL was working on the improvement of the Proficiency Guidelines (1999) and their dissemination to the profession, this organization also began to develop the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (2006), known as the 5Cs, that is, communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Although the Standards are not a curriculum guide, they suggested the types of curricula and the content required to allow students to achieve them. For example, in a 2nd-year Spanish class, students may work in groups to write, produce, and videotape a 15- to 20-minute news show that includes current financial events, a live, on-the-scene report, weather, a description of the day's stock market, and commercials. The news events may include items from the Spanish-speaking world, the United States, state, and local areas. Because of their K–16 structure, the Standards add support to the concept of extended sequences of study beginning in elementary school and continuing through secondary schools and on into higher education.
One significant element that is still lacking in the LSP instructional activities and consequential student learning and acquisition outcomes is a theoretical research base to suggest the most suitable curricula for optimal student learning. Establishment of such a base will require including careful contemplation as a constituent element of all 5Cs that make up the Standards (ACTFL, 2006) recommended by ACTFL. This critical element could be described as follows.
Contemplation. Student learning needs to be maximized so as to involve them in experiences which increase their learning via the resultant curricula and content from all Five C's of Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities. This evaluation of learner outcomes requires contemplation, that is, careful research, inquiry, observation, comparison, analysis, deliberation, meditation, reflection, and examination.
Successful application of contemplation as a key element in LSP curricular design for business will require the establishment of a new approach to Business Language Studies, as suggested by M. S. Doyle (this issue), which
will seek to provide a working definition and conceptual model for BLS; method will refer to representative constituent parts, steps, procedures, and techniques in BLS; and methodology will refer broadly to a set of working methods for BLS, a body of practices and procedures used by those who work and conduct research in the discipline. (p. 107)
Need to Broaden the Language for Specific Purposes Research Base
From the 1990s through 2010, the impact of the CIBERs on the creation of LSP materials for business in the teaching of critically needed languages in the United States has been significant. The research institutions where the CIBERs are located have created new opportunities for language faculty and administrators in other research institutions and in liberal arts colleges to acquire new skills in producing curricular materials.
In their quest for grounding practice in theory and empirical research, CIBER directors constantly call for a growth in the research base for business language programs. For the most part, the CIBER directors are based in the Colleges of Business Administration, but occasionally there is a foreign language faculty member who carries out important responsibilities within the CIBERs. At UCLA, one such language expert was Campbell, who organized the Business Language Research Priorities Conference to address these issues (Campbell, 2002). Research-related issues brought up at those sessions and at a CIBER Research Conference sponsored by SDSU in 1997 were both summarized by Grosse (2002). Among the questions that emerged for LSP research priorities were the following: (a) How do executives use foreign languages and cultural knowledge on the job? (b) How effective are our programs? (c) How well do we teach to our students’ needs? (d) What linguistic and cultural proficiency levels are needed? (e) What is the place of LSP in the FL curriculum? (f) How do academic institutions and department chairs reward LSP faculty? and (g) How can networking among faculty and sharing of research be established?
Despite the early statement of these research goals, the majority of the papers published on LSP for business, as reflected in Global Business Languages—the only current U.S. journal exclusively dedicated to the field of LSP—have dealt with descriptions of the development of business language curriculum materials, courses, programs, or degree or certificate programs. Very little research dealing with the assessment of linguistic or cultural outcomes of these programs (research topics recommended by the conferences summarized by Grosse, 2002) has been carried out over the last decade. This absence of outcomes research would seem to be attributable to the type of graduate preparation received by the instructor(s) often selected to teach these courses in both CIBER-based institutions or non-CIBER-based colleges.
An initial analysis (being conducted by the author) of the type of appointment of the more than 400 participants in the 22 years of the University of South Carolina's Spanish for business faculty development (FDIB) programs shows that LSP instructors at this institution have tended to be target language speakers with a PhD in traditional literature programs, or instructors or adjunct faculty with a Master's degree. In only a few cases, do they have a PhD in language acquisition or applied linguistics or have the training to conduct controlled research. These data on the profile of LSP instructors generally support the conclusions of Long and Uscinski's (this issue) LSP survey analysis. For LSP to rise to the level of sophistication called for by M. S. Doyle (this issue), there will need to be (a) significant changes in our graduate school programs to promote LSP research at major research institutions, and (b) a place for LSP research to be carried out with appropriate rewards either in colleges and universities or in a combination of institutions in the private or public sectors.
Stakeholders in the Field of Languages for Specific Purposes Curriculum for Business and the Served Audience
As we have observed, a number of elements have enabled LSP instruction for business to make tremendous strides in the United States over the last 4 decades. Instructors and administrators in both Humanities and Social Science Colleges and in Business Colleges have had the vision to realize the need to structure new courses and programs in colleges and universities for a “changed world” (MLA, 2007, p. 1). In addition, local, state, and national Chambers of Commerce and other professional business organizations have provided impetus for business language study. So too, have expatriates or foreign nationals working in U.S. international businesses promoted business language study after becoming aware of the adjustments that U.S.-based businesses need to make in order to avoid inappropriate linguistic and cultural behavior that could thwart successful partnerships (Ricks, 1999). Government officials (e.g., federal employees in consulates and embassies and governmental agencies such as the Peace Corps) have provided valuable insights into the importance of cross-cultural communication for establishing the lasting human relationships so important to commerce. Professional language organizations such as the MLA and the AATs have invested time and energy in developing the frameworks for business language instructors to create forums for the interchange of ideas and materials in their conferences and journals, all of which have played an important part in the development of LSP programs for business.
Professional business college organizations such as the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) have rewritten the standards for majors in business administration to include preparation for a global business world. In Porter and McKibbin's (1988) classic review of business education, they surveyed both the corporate United States and academics to assess the state of business education. They suggested six key areas that needed immediate attention: improving the behavioral skills of graduates, internationalizing the curriculum, adopting cross-functional integration as a teaching approach, broadening students’ exposure to electives in nonbusiness areas, giving more attention to the external organizational environment, and creating an information orientation that permeates the entire curriculum. These important observations have allowed the internationalization of the college/university business curricula and facilitated cooperation between business colleges and language schools and departments. The AACSB also has provided opportunities at their annual meetings for instructors in LSP for business to communicate to business college administrators the advantages that language study could offer to their students (Branan & Fryer, 1987; Fryer, 1991).
Much has been said about the importance of the federal government and private enterprise in providing assistance through Title VI grants and the establishment of the CIBERs. As more college and university professors began to produce papers and articles describing the development of methods and programs in LSP for business, individual universities provided financial and logistical support for new journals such as Global Business Languages, which was first produced in 1996 on the campus of Purdue University—only one of the many CIBER-funded universities that have accepted their roles in the development of business language courses and programs since 1990.
The movement of the business curriculum toward a more international and interdisciplinary focus has had positive effects on a number of programs as well as on individuals and groups at different levels in the K–16 sequence and beyond, with the result that they have become more aware of their role as potential stakeholders. Obviously, the graduate and undergraduate programs for business and liberal arts majors have been enhanced considerably by this move toward a more globalized vision of their disciplines. Community colleges have added language for professional use programs in fields such as healthcare, law enforcement, bilingual education, business, and medical and legal interpreting, along with a practicum in order to prepare their students for using their language skills in professional contexts (e.g., Arapahoe Community College, 2010, in Littleton, Colorado; Metropolitan Community College, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri; and colleges within the Maricopa Community College, 2011, system in the Phoenix, Arizona, area)
In many areas of the United States, such as California, state and local governments and businesses must cope with the lack of English-language skills among their constituents, employees, and customers, and community colleges are often areas where courses for limited-English-proficient clients are numerous. Lindley (2007) pointed out that programs receiving federal funds are required to comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 13166, according to which recipients must provide meaningful access to state services to all. Responding to the need for services receiving Title VI funding to comply with this ruling, community colleges often make available varying offerings such as those indicated previously.
Also affected by the curricular changes in colleges and universities were the private language institutes both at home and abroad. These institutes incorporated the new technological advances of the time and benefited financially as they filled the language gaps that needed to be filled in order to compete in the new global society. Berlitz International (2010) offers programs in 70 countries and 55 locations in the United States and their Test of Listening and Reading Skills is available in Spanish, French, German, Italian, and English. In Spain, for example, it is necessary to complete national exams in order to be permitted to work professionally in areas such as tourism that require language skills. Therefore, a number of private language institutes, including Enforex Spanish Language Schools (2010), have expanded their offerings to include specialized business courses. In addition, they organize business Spanish courses for foreign students who come to Spain planning to take the exams required in order to receive official diplomas from the Spanish Chamber of Commerce of Madrid, a partner organization in this enterprise. Similar business-focused language institutes are available in all the Spanish-speaking countries of the Americas, although there are no national exams available like those in Spain.
There are some training opportunities in business language available for teachers of K–12 students, although the number is significantly smaller than those available to teachers of college and university students. Two such opportunities have been provided by the University of Pennsylvania, which offers an annual Summer Institute for Teaching a Second Language for Business Communication, and by Florida International University, which offers a K–12 Language for Business Conference. These conferences have been conducted to introduce K–12 teachers to the content and techniques for providing business-oriented language communication to their students. The conferences were offered with the support of consulates, language associations, cultural organizations, and CIBER funding.
Rodriguez (2012) at the University of North Carolina-Kenan Flagler Institute initiated a Global Business Preparatory Program, entitled Introducing North Carolina High School Students to the Global Workplace, and offered it to students from North Carolina's officially designated Global Communicators School Districts. In the program, students prior to their junior and senior years in high school are introduced to the global workplace through a summer program held partially in North Carolina and later through total immersion living with families in Mexico. It is clear that there are some indications that attention is beginning to be given to cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary programs in K–12 programs, but it is disappointing to see that the profession has been so slow to respond to national needs at those levels given that it has long been recommended that course materials be developed for high school students so that they will be able to operate in a global business arena (Fryer, 1986, 1993).
The final stakeholder in LSP instruction is the international business community itself, which, in the long run, stands to benefit most from this kind of training. Kedia and Daniel (2003) conducted a survey to identify the real-world demand for corporate employees with international skills or knowledge of foreign languages and area skills, or both. Their results indicated that an appreciation of cross-cultural difference was perceived as the most important international skill sought by companies, whereas foreign language skills received the lowest average rating. Clearly, the vital link between language and cross-cultural communication skills still needs to be effectively communicated to many business leaders by the language profession.
The more recent study completed by Language Flagship (2008) constituted one of the most systematic efforts to assess and understand the needs for global skills in business. From 2006 through 2008, this effort engaged more than 100 business leaders to identify the role and value of languages and cultural skills to their companies. Established under the Department of Defense through the National Security Education Program, the Language Flagship program centers offer intensive language instruction to enhance academic degree programs through the achievement of superior-level language proficiency and cultural competence. Programs are available at both undergraduate and graduate levels and include periods of rigorous language and cultural immersion at overseas Flagship Centers. The Language Flagship also funds a select number of pilot K–12 programs designed to provide an articulated path of language instruction for students from elementary school through college and graduate school. Flagship languages are LCTLs such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Persian, Russian, and African languages.
The findings of the Language Flagship (2008) study included the following: language and culture studies were needed in order to establish and maintain commerce in international as well as domestic markets; higher language proficiency resulted in better personal ties that reduced the timeline needed for business development abroad; businesses emphasized that the high cost of having an outside translator, interpreter, or agency to handle key business communications was counterproductive because they often did not know the product, service, or mission of the company, thus ultimately reducing the trust level in business negotiations. It is evident that business leaders surveyed in this study more clearly understood that cross-cultural communication skills developed through LSP enhance business transactions.
CURRENT NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
Needs Analysis
Prior to the development of LSP for business courses and programs and at the beginning of the learning cycle, it is necessary to conduct a needs analysis, that is, the process of gathering data and breaking down the information into its constituent parts for the purpose of providing clients or students with the language and culture skills needed to function professionally. Graves (2000) defined needs assessment as “a systematic and ongoing process of gathering information about students’ needs and preferences, interpreting the information, and then making course decisions based on the interpretation in order to meet the needs” (p. 98). The components for the development of the framework for course development as well as for program development, according to Graves (1996), include not only needs assessment, but also the determination of goals and objectives, the conceptualization of content, the selection and development of materials and activities, evaluation, and consideration of resources and constraints.
Over 30 years ago, Richterich and Chanceral (1980) discussed the importance of placing the student or the consumer at the center of all curricular planning, taking into account their goals and the resources available to teacher and learner, and considering where the skills will be learned and applied. In planning the language programs at the Lauder Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, Cowles (1998) considered needs assessment as central to the design and implementation of curriculum, syllabi, and materials for business language programs. Within the Lauder Institute program designs, Cowles considered the following areas: (a) student profiles, including existing proficiency, desired proficiency, knowledge base relevant to training, maturation, age, past experience with language learning, perceived learning styles, and time available both in and out of class; (b) teacher profiles including experience, formal training, ability to redesign courses, knowledge of content, philosophy of learning, learning time (fast or slow), time available for preparation, and feedback from students; and (c) educational setting resources, including the availability of support, finances available to innovate, availability of faculty and their commitment, access to methodology and training, and the importance of the program to the institution.
For assessing and improving an existing program, Cowles (1998) suggested seeking recommendations from current and former students, instructors, and any other person or group that has either been served by or has benefited from the training. In addition, any assessment must acknowledge internal or external factors that may change over time, such as the number of contact hours, enrollment changes, altered requirements, changes in the marketplace where language skills are applied, different trade policies affected by governmental or nongovernmental elements, and changes in peer institution programs. For developing a new course or program, she suggested that both the professional school and the language department be represented on a committee to complete a fact-finding study, beginning with a survey of existing programs and a review of relevant reports and texts. Then, students, teachers, clients, and users should be identified, as well as community, administration, and professionals in the United States and abroad. Using these as resources, committee members would observe the use of language in professional contexts and transactional analyses of student and peer groups. In addition, interviews and focus groups, questionnaires, and audio and video recordings of target contexts would result in a first document draft. Cowles suggested that all these steps are critical for assessing programs that are already in place in order to meet learner needs. LSP programs could increase the functionality of their curricula by conducting more analyses of the target language discourse used in natural professional settings, such as the analyses carried out by contributors to the work by Alatis, Hamilton, and Tan (2002).
Creating Alternative Programs for Achieving Proficiency in Business Languages
Much more could be done to inform stakeholders about the availability of alternative ways to achieve proficiency in business languages, such as intensive language instruction, summer language institutes, individualized instruction, distance learning, study abroad, internships, exchanges, and collaboration. For example, intensive language instruction has been successfully employed in the model LSP programs at the University of South Carolina at the graduate level and at EMU at the undergraduate level in order to provide the LSP proficiency levels necessary for study abroad in business colleges. In addition, intensive LSP training sequences provide the preparation necessary for successful performance in internships where the target language is spoken, as well as in exchange programs in institutions abroad, or in special programs of collaboration, such as the MEXUS program at SDSU, which requires a high degree of language proficiency in English and Spanish, the target language.
Schultz (1979) supported the following measures for making intensive language programs an important feature of successful LSP programs: (a) allowing increased contact time with the language and offering a setting that is closer to a natural language-learning situation than is possible in traditional courses; (b) providing a more compact and cost-effective time frame for achieving an acceptable level of proficiency given that the usual drawn-out 3 to 4 hours per week instructional time provided by a traditional language course structure does not allow the students to achieve an acceptable level of language proficiency before going abroad to study or intern; and (c) reducing the extended length of time necessary to meet needs for LSP for professions such as business, broadcasting, government service, military service, engineering, and the sciences from years to months or months to weeks.
The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE, 2010), in its discussion of alternative modes of language instruction, points out that while employers are seeking employees with proficiency in a diverse range of foreign languages, including LCTLs, in order to be more marketable abroad, they are faced with shortages of advanced- to superior-level speakers. This insufficiency is due to the fact that colleges and universities face great challenges in providing instruction in all these languages in traditional classrooms because the demand for LCTLs is small and sporadic. This situation suggests establishing summer language institutes that draw from a national audience for the purpose of acquiring proficiency in specifically selected LCTL languages. For instance, the Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute, an 8-week intensive language training program for undergraduates, graduate students, and professionals that originated in 1983 and has been hosted by the University of Wisconsin–Madison since 2000, has offered instruction for academic credit in nine languages, at the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-year levels, including Burmese, Filipino, Khmer, Lao, Indonesian, and Vietnamese.
Other summer language learning institutes are available through Title VI at university cooperatives, including the Summer Cooperative African Language Institute hosted by the University of Florida for 2011–2012. Freeman (1975) and Knox and Freeman (1999) painted the history of the Middlebury College, Summer Language Schools, which have focused on offering intensive programs for CTLs and LCTLs for decades. The MIBS program at the University of South Carolina for over 30 years successfully used two successive summer intensive language programs, one on campus and one abroad, to permit graduate students with little or no prior language experience to acquire sufficient proficiency levels so that they could complete successful internships abroad (Fryer & Day, 1993).
If the United States expects to develop its LCTL language capability to serve the international business community, it will need to employ learning procedures such as those suggested by the OPE, whereby individuals or small groups can utilize individualized programs, tutorial programs, or self-instructional programs that team a language program coordinator with native-speaking tutors for learning in a one-to-one context. The National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs (NASILP, 2010) is North America's only professional organization specifically devoted to fostering the study of LCTLs through self-instructional principles. Self-instructional language programs are limited to skills-level learning, which normally cover 4 to 6 semesters of study. These programs do not include courses in the study of literature, linguistics, or culture at the advanced undergraduate or graduate level. NASILP has received grant support for special projects from the U.S. Department of Education, the Japan Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and ARCO (Atlantic-Richfield) Corporation.
Likewise, at the Five College Center for the Study of World Languages (2010b), students from Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who have excellent language skills and a record of past success in language learning are given an opportunity to study languages not currently offered in classroom courses at any of the participating colleges. Also available through the Five College Center for the Study of World Languages (2010a) is CultureTalk, a service that provides video clips of interviews and discussions with people of different ages from many countries who discuss family, food, education, religious and cultural customs, work, art, sports, and travel. The development of materials such as these is critical for successful communication in a global business community.
Distance language learning is a promising technological development being utilized in conjunction with videoconferencing in many U.S. institutions to deliver language and cultural content to LSP learners. At the University of Texas–Austin, Kelm (2010) has developed an outstanding Web page that includes streaming video of cultural interviews he has conducted with businessmen and businesswomen from abroad on selected topics. Kelm's interviews provide useful cultural information, professional vocabulary, and examples of natural speech, while combining his expertise in language, culture, and technology.
Wang (2007) noted that empirical studies on the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) to learn languages have shown that it is one of the fastest growing areas in second language acquisition research in recent years (for a detailed look at the use of technology and CMC in LSP instruction, see Arnó, this issue). In fact, employers seeking to reduce travel costs in a difficult economy and companies developing the technology for videoconferencing (such as Tandberg, 2010) are interested in determining (a) the efficacy of business travel on productivity, (b) the effects of business travel on employee welfare, and (c) the potential positive effects on the environment of videoconferencing versus business travel. This type of research meets the needs of business and industry and could have significant implications for programs of study abroad, overseas internships, exchange programs, and collaborative programs, which are traditionally perceived by language instructors as having the most positive effects on developing student language proficiency. Nonetheless, recent study abroad research has called into question some of these assumptions about the positive effects of traditional study abroad programs, especially if the learners did not take advantage of the language learning opportunities afforded them in their in-country environment outside of class (Kinginger, 2008; Lafford & Collentine, 2006). However, LSP students who travel abroad specifically to participate in in-country internships in professional settings are forced to communicate in the target language with people in their field of study and are, therefore, more likely to be able to take advantage of an international environment for learning language and culture.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM CREATION IN LANGUAGES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES FOR BUSINESS
Despite all the progress in the development of LSP curricula for business, a number of obstacles remain to be overcome. Perhaps the greatest hurdle is the one pinpointed by M. S. Doyle (this issue), which calls for business language studies to adopt “a more adequate toponymic identity—by which to identify itself as a theory-based field of scholarship” (p. 113). Given that so much of LSP development has been at the college/university level, research and productive scholarship in LSP, often referred to as a “movement” by senior faculty, has not always been well received by department and college committees and administrators at the time of tenure and promotion of a junior faculty member. This situation is complicated by the fact that the field of LSP involves an interdisciplinary combination of expertise in business, language, and culture, which may be difficult to find in individual outside reviewers who evaluate junior faculty for tenure. In addition, the major graduate-degree-granting institutions are slow to adapt their degree content to include opportunities to incorporate new areas of study as options for their majors. Furthermore, history tells us that even the idea of including foreign language methodology courses for the preparation of teaching assistants in the graduate curriculum was slow to germinate, although today it is now generally a part of their preparation in most major research institutions.
A second challenge to the development of LSP curricula in the United States is the lack of sufficient training for LSP teachers. Consequently, the responsibility for preparing language instructors in specialized professional business areas has fallen to those CIBERs such as the long-standing summer study abroad program of the Florida International University CIBER in Ávila and Madrid (Verdu & Watson, 2011). Without programs such as these, the funding for the training has fallen on the shoulders of the instructors themselves, who, because of student demand for coursework, find themselves thrust into teaching professional course content beyond their areas of expertise. In many cases, LSP instructors tend to be native speakers of the language who have grown up using at least the basic terminology from the various professions. This is a positive feature of LSP programs, although some training in language teaching methodology and curriculum development for those target-language-speaking instructors is critical for their success. LSP pedagogical training for heritage speakers of LCTLs should continue to be a priority.
A third barrier to LSP curriculum development in the United States is the lack of available teaching materials, journals, and conferences for new and experienced instructors, particularly in the more recently developing area of critical languages. Although CIBER funding has provided financial support for one issue per year of Global Business Languages since 1996, the Journal of Languages for International Business, formerly supported by Thunderbird (1984 through 2003), now lacks funding and a home institution. The AATF and the AATG support focus groups on the teaching of LSP in their languages and at their conferences, and occasionally the AATSP, ACTFL, and the MLA have given a few indications of being supportive, but more constant support and encouragement will be needed from these organizations for major improvements to occur in LSP.
For all LSP instructors, new or experienced, adjustments will need to be made to LSP curricula in order to be successful with the millennial learner, also referred to as Net-generation learners, Generation Y, and digital natives. The traditional student of today, born after 1982, has a different relationship with information and learning than did the generations coming before them (Rodgers, Runyan, Starrett, & Von Holzen, 2006). They multitask and use sound and image to communicate content rather than using the usual medium of traditional learning, text. They see computers as part of life, not just technology as did previous generations. Because these are the students now beginning to attend colleges and universities, and graduate school soon after that, the older instructors will encounter greater and greater gaps in learning styles. Learning is, and always has been, a lifelong experience. Given the availability of new technologies to LSP instructors and students, distance learning in foreign languages must become a critical element. The National Council of State Supervisors for Languages (NCSSFL, 2002) has recognized the potential that distance learning offers through the use of telecommunications as the primary technology for instructional purposes.
Finally, issues dealing with learning, teaching, and assessment of the entire area of culture have been barriers to the implementation of LSP curriculum creation for business. Kramsch (1995) summarized the dilemma between what research tells us about incorporating the teaching of culture in the LSP classroom and the realities of the current state in this manner.
Despite the advances made by research in the spheres of the intercultural and the multicultural, language teaching is still operating on a relatively narrow conception of both language and culture. Language continues to be taught as a fixed system of formal structures and universal speech functions, a neutral conduit for the transmission of cultural knowledge. Culture is incorporated only to the extent that it reinforces and enriches, not that it puts in question, traditional boundaries of self and other. In practice, teachers teach language and culture, or culture in language, but not language as culture. (p. 89)
LSP instructors in the United States have likewise focused on the teaching and acquisition of language at the expense of culture and cross-cultural communication. However, the opportunities now at our disposal through increased technological applications for the development of cultural and intercultural competence can greatly facilitate the pursuit of the five standards of communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Also needed are high standards of LSP research and assessment, and contemplation of how well we are succeeding in our endeavors. Since their publication in 2006, the Standards (ACTFL) and their state counterparts have influenced LSP teaching and have changed the long-range perspective for the mastery of languages and cultures for students of any age. LSP for business can be useful in the daily lives of those students of all ages. Utilizing the Standards and applying international telecommunication technology allows us to tie communication via language to an awareness and an understanding of real-world cultures.
AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, the need for greater contemplation of a theoretical framework for the linguistic and cultural analysis for LSP for business and the professions becomes quite evident. More and better theoretically grounded empirical research dealing with second language acquisition and learning of languages other than English (LOTEs) will be needed in order to form the basis for this framework. When ACTFL was producing a Bibliography of Books and Articles on Pedagogy in Foreign Language (Benseler, 1975, 1978, 1982a, 1982b; Lange, 1969a, 1969b, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973), nearly all the solid research on language learning and acquisition, or methodology of teaching, came from the area of English as a second language or English for speakers of other languages. Although many of the published articles in the field were published in journals and referenced in the ACTFL bibliographies in the Methods section, there were almost no similar research articles published or referenced in LSP (in LOTEs) or foreign language teaching in general. That was to be expected given that many linguistics departments or programs in universities in the United States evolved from having linguists and graduate students housed in English departments rather than in their own separate department.
As linguistics departments developed and the study of linguistics became more internationalized and integrated into university curricula, traditional PhD foreign language literature programs started to offer tracks in linguistics (e.g., Spanish linguistics PhD track at the University of Minnesota, University of Texas at Austin, and University of California at Davis). In addition, specialized PhD programs in second language acquisition and teaching, such as (a) Second Language Acquisition and Teacher Education (SLATE) at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and (b) Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) at the University of Arizona, began to produce experts in the acquisition of LOTEs, and more research has dealt with the acquisition of LOTEs. As an example of the increased interest in non-English-language research, The Modern Language Journal, in its most recent listing of Doctoral Degrees Granted in Foreign Languages in the United States, in the areas of Foreign/Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, featured subcategories of dissertations in Asian Languages, European Languages, and English as a Second Language. Of the 20 dissertation titles listed, 12 (60%) dealt with acquisition and learning of second languages other than English (Benseler, 2007).
An increased focus on the implementation of a theoretical framework will also encourage research in the areas of assessment of student intercultural competence. As Scarino (2010) asserted, an intercultural orientation engages “learners in developing the capability to exchange meaning in communication with people across languages and cultures in a way that foregrounds their positioning in the language and culture they are learning” (p. 325). To negotiate business transactions successfully, business language learners must develop effective, culturally sensitive ways of communicating with speakers of the target language in professional contexts. For LSP curricula in business to be fully developed, linguistic and cultural knowledge will need to be integrated with business skills and knowledge in longer learning sequences. This process will require additional investment of time and funds in the LSP for business preparation of secondary school foreign language teachers, and university professors at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This improvement in educator preparation should ultimately result in longer sequencing of LSP development at all levels of the educational system, which will provide our students with a solid linguistic and cultural base for effectively communicating in global professional settings.
This solid base will require more extensive and measured assessment of learners’ linguistic and cultural outcomes (in classroom and workplace settings) and employer and internship coordinator assessment of the successful application of cultural knowledge and language use by those learners in the business environment. In that regard, researchers also need to focus on the specific needs of multinational firms and other business organizations and make them important players in the determination of curricular organization.
