臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究目的在探討學生與教師在商業英語課程中所面臨之困難並提出試驗性協同教學模式為可能解決之道。此新教學技巧將英文與專業知識結合於課程中 (Dudley-Evans & Hutchinson, 1998)。Dudley-Evans (1984)也提出海外留學生缺乏專業知識及語文知識致使其無法應付專業課程。在今日商業英語課程中﹐語言教師及專業教師分別傳授其知識給學生且少有接觸往來。學生很難將語文及專業知識同時應用於商業課程中。Widdowson (1983)主張 “學習英語是一些其他專家或學術為目的之輔助。專業英語教學主要述及“迎合需求: 學習者及學習語境和在目標情況中溝通需求” (Northcott, 1997, p. 2)。但目前商業英語課程教學許多缺點可能是“缺乏商業生活實際直接和參與經驗” (Holden, 1990, p. 25), 所教授內容與實際工作需求無法聯結。基於此點﹐合作是為雙向程序:專業教師需要幫忙語言教師學習更多學習者目標情境(target situations)﹔語言教師能了解學習者研讀商業英語課程所面臨語言學習問題(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987)。教師間彼此間的合作將能使學習者清楚致力於目標設定以便學習目標能與其就業需求有相關(Tudor, 1996)。
本文研究方法使用不同問卷實施於台灣四十五所技術學院以立意抽樣方式51位任教應用外語系之商業英語教師﹐由於無自願教師之支持實施問卷調查有關學生學習問題以38位澎湖技術學院學生為樣本業生為量化研究。並以南台灣兩所123位技專生為質化研究對象以探索學生在商業英語課程中閱讀英語教科書問題之看法。為檢視學術機構與實際工作學習差距﹐以南台灣電話簿隨機抽樣方式抽取36家公司半結構性電話訪談為資料。所使用研究採用卡方分析是否商業英語教師教學理念及對同一課程協同教學之態度有顯著性差異。教師和學生對商業英語問題之反應以百分比做紀錄，開放性問題之反應以內容分析步驟給予分析並分類。與36家半結構性訪，3位課堂觀察商業英語教師﹐1位學校主管及兩所技術學院63位同學訪談錄音和記錄。
自量化與質化結果似乎技專學生大多數學生語言能力不足。語言能力低的學習者有困難對全文做分析﹐問題在於學習者在修商業英語課程前無法達到某種語言精熟程度。另一方面﹐教師專業知識現有能力﹐包括工作經驗及實務性工作技能,可能決定其教材選擇﹐教學實務和教學技巧。此研究中﹐專業教師或語言教師各有其教學問題。教師預期所教之方式和學習者在教室中真正想學之方式有學習差距。從36家公司主管電話訪談結果顯示教室所學與實際工作所要有某種程度學習差距。此暗示學校主管需要將商業英語教師之專長與實際工作技能和學生低語文能力列入考慮。為使技專學生能在全球市場有所競爭﹐建議學術機構考慮對低成就學生做額外性補救課程及與業界做合作夥伴以使課程能和業界雇用人才需求相配合。而且﹐業界也能提供機會有實際工作實習機會。
從探討商業英語課程中教學與學習問題中可得知結論以逐漸意識到傳統教學技巧無法滿足學生學術需求或其未來就業需求。為彌補商業英語教師所教及教師對實際生活情況所了解之差距﹐研究結果建議協同教學為單一商業教師對其課堂中自省之有效變通方式。此新教學技巧可能為改善教育品質可能解決方法。經由合作教學商業英語教師能改善教學品質及做更多富有成效之研究。協同教學也可調合大班課程語言程度不一之學生不同學習風格。學生在同一教室體驗一位以上教師及觀察教師在課堂上活動。經由教師和同儕們互動﹐學生們能發展其問題解決及判斷思考能力與進一步增加合作技能。不但學生可改善人際關係而且能力差的學生能經由與能力強之學生合作學習。協同教學也給予語言能力不足學生在補救工作上寶貴的資源。畢竟﹐協同教學提供一個寶貴機會以解決學生更多學習問題。但此新的教學法對教師而言需要時間接納它。

The aim of this study is to investigate the difficulties students and teachers experienced in Business English courses at the institutes of technology in Taiwan. A tentative model of team teaching is proposed as a possible solution to students''and teachers''problems in Business English courses.
The new teaching technique is to integrate English and subject-specific knowledge in Business English courses (Dudley-Evans & Hutchinson, 1998). As Dudley-Evans (1984) states, the lack of subject knowledge and language knowledge results in an overseas student’s inability to cope with his subject course. In today’s Business English courses, a language teacher and a subject teacher separately impart their own knowledge realms to students. Both teachers do not have frequently personal and professional contact with each other. It is also difficult for the L2 learners to integrate the subject knowledge as well as the language knowledge at the same time and apply both specific knowledge realms in their Business English courses. Widdowson (1983) proposes that “ the learning of English is auxiliary to some other professional or academic purpose” (p. 9). It is essential that ESP should be concerned about “responding to needs─both those related to the learners and the learning context and the communication needs of the target situation” (Northcott, 1997, p. 21). However, as Holden (1990) suggests, a number of weaknesses in current Business English teaching may be “a result of a lack in the language teaching community of direct, hands-on experience of the realities of business life” (p. 25). The mismatch between what is taught and what learners actually need takes place.
Based upon this factor, cooperation is a two-way process: the subject teacher needs to help the language teacher learn more about the learners’ target situations. On the other hand, the language teacher can understand more about the learners’ language problems in studying BE courses (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Through the collaboration of both teachers, learners can clearly make a contribution to goal-setting so that their learning goal can be related to their occupational needs (Tudor, 1996).
In this study two different types of questionnaires were respectively administered to 51 Business English instructors at the Departments of Applied Foreign Languages at forty-five institutes of technology in Taiwan, based on purposive sampling and 38 students at National Penghu Institute of Technology as a sample due to the limit of no voluntary teacher’s support to the students’ survey as an quantitative study. One hundred and twenty-three students at two institutes of technology were also chosen as the study focus for a qualitative study so as to explore students''perceptions of the problems while studying English textbooks in Business English courses. To examine the degree of learning gap between the academic institutes and real-life work, data from semi-structured telephone interviews with 36 company executives, based on random sampling from a telephone directory in Southern Taiwan were employed.
Chi-square analysis was utilized to indicate whether there were significant differences in the views of teaching practices and their attitudes towards team teaching in the same course. Teachers’ and students’ responses to the perceptions of problems in Business English were tallied and presented in percentage, and their responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed and categorized using a content analysis procedure. The semi-structured interviews with 36 company executives, three observed BE teachers, one school administrator, and 63 students at two institutes of technology were audio-taped and recorded.
From the results of quantitative and qualitative studies, it appears that a growing number of students with limited English proficiency at the institutes of technology had trouble comprehending an analysis of a whole text before taking Business English courses. In another regard, instructors’ expertise either in subject knowledge or language proficiency and working experience might determine their materials selection, teaching practices, and teaching techniques. The result also reveals that there was a certain degree of learning gap between what the learners were taught in the classroom and what learners really did at work from a telephone interview with 36 company executives. This implies that school administrators needed to take BE teachers'' expertise and practical work skills and students''low language proficiency into account.
To make students at the institutes of technology competitive in the global market, the findings suggest that academic institutions consider offering supplementary remedial programs to low achievers. It is also suggested that both public and private sectors can be partners to ensure that curricula are compatible with employment requirements of business and service industries. If possible, the business sectors can also provide the opportunity for students to have internships in the real work.
Having discussed teaching and learning problems in BE courses, we can conclude that there is a growing awareness that the traditional teaching technique cannot meet students’ academic needs or their future employment requirements. To fill in the gap between what BE teachers are teaching and what the teachers should know about real-life situations, the results of this study suggest that team teaching be an effective alternative to the traditional solitary BE teacher’s self-reflection upon what he/she is doing in the classroom. The new teaching technique can be a possible solution to improving the quality of education. Through collaborative teaching, BE teachers can improve teaching quality and do further productive research.
Team teaching also can accommodate the different learning styles of students with mixed language levels in a big class. Students experience more than one teacher in the same classroom and observe what their teachers are doing. Through interaction with their teachers and peers, students can develop their problem-solving as well as critical thinking and further increase their collaborative skills. Team teaching is also an invaluable resource for remedial work for LEP learners. Overall, team teaching offers a greater opportunity to solve more of the students’ learning problems. Even so, it is likely that it will take time for teachers to accept this new teaching technique.

Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………… ………………………………………… iii
Acknowledgements…………………………….. ………………………………………… v
List of Tables……………………………….….. ………………………………………… vii
List of Figures………………………………….. ………………………………………… ix
Chapter 1 Introduction…………………….. ……………………………………… 1
Background……………………………………………………... ……………………… 1
Purpose of the Present Study…………………………………… …...………………… 5
Research Questions…………………………………………….. ……………………… 7
Definitions of Terms …………….…………………………….. ……………………… 7
Significance of the Study…………………………….…………. ……………………… 11
Frame of the Whole Study……………………………………… ……………………… 13
Chapter 2 Review of the Related Literature …….…….. ……………………………… 15
The History of Business English………………………………. ……………………… 15
The Features of Business English……………………………… ……………………… 16
Business English at the Institutes of Technology in Taiwan…… ……………………… 18
The History of Team Teaching………………………………… ………………………. 33
The Importance of Team Teaching…………………………….. ………………………. 34
The Definitions of Team Teaching……………….…………... ……………………… 36
The Rationale of Team Teaching…………….………………… ……………………… 37
Structuring Team Taught Courses …………………………….. ……………………… 39
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Team Teaching……….. ……………………… 42
The Types of Team Teaching…………………………………... ……………………… 48
Issues Involved in Team Teaching in EBP Courses ………….. ……………………… 52
Students’ Perception of Team Teaching ………………………. ……………………… 61
Necessary Conditions for Successful Team Teaching in an Interdisciplinary Curriculum ……………………………………………………………………………… 63
Chapter 3 Methodology…………………… …………………………… 66
Participants …………………………………………… …………………………… 67
Instrumentation……………………………………….. …………………………… 76
Validity and Reliability ………………………………. …………………………… 86
Data Collection Procedures…………………………… …………………………… 87
Data Analysis…………………………………………. …………………………… 92
Chapter 4 Results………………………………………. ……………………………… 93
Part One: The Results of Quantitative Data Analysis ……………………………… 93
Part Two: The Results of Qualitative Data Analysis ……………………………… 112
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions ………………. ……………………………… 167
Discussion ……………………………………………. ……………………………… 167
The Students’ Learning Difficulty in Business English: Reading Long Business English Texts…………………………………………………………………………… 167
Learners’ Needs ……………………………………… …………………………… 170
Job-related Skills ……………………………………. ……………………………… 171
Possible Solutions to the Problems …………………. ……………………………… 177
Responding to the Purpose of This Study …………… ……………………………… 179
Conclusions …………………………………………. ……………………………… 187
Restatement of Purpose ………………………………. ……………………………… 187
Summary of Main Points/Findings …………………… ……………………………… 187
A Tentative Model of Team Teaching as a Possible Solution to Learning and Teaching Problems in Business English Courses ……………………………………... 190
Implications for Educators…………………………… ……………………………… 201
The Limitations of the Study ………………………… ……………………………… 203
Recommendations for Future Research ……………… ……………………………… 204
References ……………………………………………. ……………………………… 207
Appendices ………………………………………….. ……………………………… 224

References
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.
Alexander, R. J. (1997). Content-based business English curricula: retrospective reflections, current considerations and prospective proposals on English for business and academic purposes in European higher education, EESE 6, 1-12. Content-based Business English curricula. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc.ia.eese/artic97/alex/7-97.html
Bailey, K. M., Dale, T., & Squire, B. (1992). Some reflections on collaborative teaching, In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press, 162-178.
Bair, M., & Woodward, R. G. (1964). Team teaching in action. Boston: Houghton-Miffin.
Bauer, H. J. (1997). Teacher training in business English. In Egloff, G. and Fitzpatrick, A. (Eds.), Language for work and life: The Council of Europe and vocational oriented language learning. Strasbourg: Educational Committee, council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe Publishing.
Baumgardner, R. J., Chamberlain, D., Dharmapriya, At. T., and Staley, B. W. (1986). ESP for engineers: Two approaches, in Tickoo, M. L. (Ed.), Language across the curriculum, selected papers from the RELC seminar on ‘Language across the curriculum’, Singapore, 22-26, April, 1985.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: theory, politics and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bennett, R. V., Ishler, M. F., and M. O’Loughlin. (1992). Effective collaboration in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 14 (1), 52-6.
Berube, B. (1998). Strategies for accommodating limited English proficient students. Augusta, ME: Main Department of Education.
Bhatia, V. K. (1983). Simplication v. Easification-The case of legal texts. Applied Linguistics, (4), 1, 42-54.
Bhatia, V. K. (1994). Generic integrity in ESP. In R. Khoo (Ed.), LSP: Problems & Prospects. Singapore: SEAMEO, 49-61.
Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influence and consequences for students and teachers. Chicago, IL: National Center on Effective Schools.
Buckley, S.J., & Francis, J. (2000). Team teaching: what, why, and how? CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Burnaford, G., & Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bynom, A. (2000). Team teaching: plus or minus ESP. Forum, (38), 1, 38.
Caffarella, R. S. (1988). Ethical dilemmas in the teaching of adults. In Rockettt, R. G. (Ed.), Ethical issues in adult education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cannizzaro, D. (1999). Teaching ESP as content-based English. Simply teaching English? It could be enough, but there’s something more….Retrieved October 27, 2002, from the World Wide Web Site: http://www.itiscannizzaro.net/Ianni/articles/content.htm
Celani, M.A. (1998). A retrospective view of an ESP teacher education programme. Sao Paulo: the ESP, 19(2), 233-244.
Chen, H.C. (1994). Team teaching English for Special Purposes: a new perspective. Taipei: Tamkang Times, 235-252.
Chen, K. Y. (2003). The survey of poor language proficiency for the students at the institutes of technology, Central Newspaper. Retrieved November 7, 2003, from the World Wide Web Site: http://tw.news.yahoo.com/leisure/cdn/4353742.html.
Clapham, C. (1990). Is ESP testing justified?, unpublished paper given at the 12th Langugae Testing Research Colloquium, San Francisco, CA.
Collaborative teaching (2002). Collaborative teaching: implications for EFL instructions. Retrieved November 5, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.mantoman.co.kr/issues/m023/m2303.htm
Cordeanu, A., Ivanescu, R., and Stefan, R. (1998). Teaching business English. Prosper, 14-18.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Cunningham, L. L. (1994). Team teaching: where do we stand? Administrator’s Notebook, 8, 1-4.
Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics approach. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 3, 427-453.
Davis, J. R. (2002). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: new arrangement for learning. USA: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Dudley-Evans, A. (1984). The team-teaching of writing skills. In R. Williams, J. M. Swales and J. Kirkman (Eds.), Common ground: Shared interests in ESP and communication studies. ELT Documents, 117. British Council English Language Centre, 127-133.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach. In John Flowerdew & Matthew Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. UK: Cambridge University Press, 225-238.
EGallery, K. (2000). Prespectives on team teaching. A Peer Reviewed Journal, 1(4), 1-12.
Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. M. (1994). Teaching Business English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felder, R. M., Bernold, L. E., Burniston, E. E., Dail, P. R., and Gastineau, J. E. (1996). Team-teaching in an integrated freshman engineering curriculum. ASEE Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C. Retrieved November 4, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http:// www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/pams/physics/PCEP/impec/ASEE-P1.htm.
Firestone, W.A., & Rosenblum, S. (1988). Building commitment in urban high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 4, 285-299.
Flanagan, B. (2002). Collaborative teaching 101. Retrieved November 15, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.vcld. Org/pages/newletters/00-01-spring/coll-teach.htm
Forcey, Rennie, L., & Rainforth, B. (1998). Team teaching “conflict resolution in educational and community settings”: An experiment in collaboration and conflict resolution. Peace & Change, (29), 3, 1-10. Blackwell Publishers. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://web2.epnet.com/citation.asp. (EBSCOhost Research Database 01490508)
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portmouth: Heinemann.
Fried-Booth, D. L. (1986). Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). The new mainstreaming. Instructor, 101(7), 30-36.
Galbraith, P., & Anstrom, K. (1995). Peer coaching: an effective staff development model for educators of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Director in Language & Education, 1(3), 1-8. Retrieved October 14, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/03.htm
George, M. A., &Davis-Wiley, P. (2000). Team teaching a graduate course. College Teaching, (48), 2, 75-80. (EBSCOhost Research Databases 3205448)
Gibson, R. (1999). Language, skills and content for university students of business. BESIG Business Issues, 1, 8-10.
Harris, C., & Harvey, A. N. (2000). Team teaching in adult higher education classrooms: toward collaborative knowledge instruction. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 87, 25-32.
Hatch, T., & Hinton, B. (1996). Graduate student’s perception of university team-teaching. College Student Journal, 30(3), 1-8. EBSCOhost. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://web2.epnet.com/citation.asp. (EBSCOhost Research Database 01463934)
Henderson, W., & Skehan, P. (1980). The team- teaching of introductory economics to overseas students. In British Council (Ed.), Team teaching in ESP. ELT Document 106. British Council English Teaching Centre, 34-47.
Heyneman, J., Berwick, R. and Baird, D. (1983). In-house language training in a Japanese company. Language Training, (4), 2.
Holden, J. (1990). Language as a facet in international business transactions: some research developments and conceptual challenges. Paper presented at the conference’ Business communication in multilingual Europe: supply and demand’, University of Antwerp, 22-24.
Horsella, M., & Huerta, T. (1978). A first approximation to the uses, purposes, subject matter and difficulties in science texts in a foreign language. Santiago, Chile: University of Chile, Department of Humanistic Studies.
Huerta, T., Ibanez, I., and Kaulen, A. (1986). Balancing institutional and motivational factors in ESP syllabus design. English for Specific Purposes, (5), 2, 189-195.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: a learner-centered approach. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Job market survey for job hunters with poor English (2003). Human bank resources. Retrieved February 6, from the World Wide Web: http://tw.news.yahoo.com/2003/02/06/leisure/can/4353339.html
Johns, T. F., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1980). An experiment in team-teaching of overseas postgraduate students of transportation and plant biology. In British Council (Ed.), Team teaching in ESP, ELT Document 106. London: British Council English Teaching Information Center, 6-23.
Johns, T., & Davies, F. (1983). Text as a vehicle for information: The classroom use of written texts in teaching reading in a foreign language. Reading in a foreign language, (1), 1, 1-19.
Johnson, C. (1993). Business English, Cambridge University: Language Teaching, 26, 201-209.
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York: Longman.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kluwin, T. N., Gonsher, W., Silver, K., and Samuels, J. (1996). The E. T. class: Education together-Team teaching hearing impaired and hearing students together. Teaching Exceptional Children. 29(1), 11-15.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. UK: Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Kester, A. (1997). Materials for Teacher Training in Business English. In Egloff, G., and Fitzpatrick, A. (Eds.), Language for work and life: The Council of Europe and vocational oriented language learning. Strasbourg: Educational Committee, Council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe Publishing.
Lage, M. J., & Snavely, B. K. (2002). Benefits and costs of team teaching: experience from interdisciplinary collaboration. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cswep.org/lageandsnavely.html.
Mayfield, P., & Marsh, M. (2000). Collaborative teaching: special education for inclusive classrooms. Parrot Publishing, L.L. C. Retrieved January 19, 2004, from World Wide Web: http://www.parrotpublishing.com/Inclusive_Chapter_3.htm.
McDonald, D., Ajay Mahajan, and Mohamad Qatu. (1996).Turn/team teaching-20/20 hindsight experience and tips. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. Retrieved August 25, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:409-51znt8oJ:www.asee.org/
Conferences/searc…
McDonough, J. (1984). ESP in perspective: A practical guide. London: Collins ELT.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nababan, P.W. J. (1994). ESP materials preparation in a foreign language situation. In Khoo, R. (Ed.), The practice of ESP: Perspectives, programme and projects. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center, 132-141.
Nation, P., & Newton, J. (1997). Teaching vocabulary. In James Coady and Thomas Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. NY: Cambridge University, 238-254.
Newell, W. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. In Julie Thompson Klein and William Doty (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies Today. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Northcott, J. (1997). ESP teaching for the 1990s. In J. Stefanou-Dimatati (Ed.), Economic and social sciences. UK: University of Macedonia, 9-23.
Olsen, R., and Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In Cooperative language learning, Carolyn Kessler (Ed.), NJ: Prentice Hall, 1-30.
Pickett, D. (1986). Business English: Falling between two stools. Comlon 26: 16-21.
Pickett, D. (1989). The sleeping giant: investigations in business English. Language International, (1), 1.
Pilbeam, A. (1979). The language audit. Language Training, (1), 2.
Potocar, M. (2001). English for specific purposes world, Web-based Journal, 1-9. ESP World. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_1/esp.html.
Power, T. (2003). Language testing & methods of assessment. Retrieved December 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.btinternet.com.com/~ted.power/esl0704.html
Quin, S., & Kanter, S. (1984). Team teaching: an alternative to lecture fatigue, Innovation Abstracts, 6, 1-10, Eric Document: ED 251169.
Reed, P. (1988). School/university collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, St. Louis, Mo.
Ritchie, J. (1998). Thinking bigger and thinking smaller: Learning about qualitative research. Association for Survey Computing. Retrieved February 11, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.asc.org.uk/Events/Apr98/Ritchie.html
Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: a practitioner’s guide. UK: Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Rubottom, V. (1999). Building a successful teaching team. Christian Education Counselor. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://cecounselor.ag.org/cecounselor/199904-c.chd.cfm
Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(2), 39-54.
Schaible, R., & Robinson, B. (1995). Collaborative teaching: Reaping the benefits, College Teaching, 43, 57-59.
Selinker, L. (1979). On the use of informants in discourse analysis and language for specialized purposes, IRAL, 18(2), 189-215.
Shafer, I. (2000). Team teaching: education for the future. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/teamteaching.htm
Shannon, N. B., & Meath-Lang, B. (1992). Collaborative language teaching: A co-investigation. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press, 120-140.
Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction, VA: TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 1-23.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE.
Smyth, E. A., Arnold, F., and Seaton, I. (1980). An English language testing service: subject/language collaboration in ESP test design. In British Council (Ed.), Team teaching in ESP, ELT Document 106. London: British Council English Teaching Information Centre, 109-125.
Spiljak, V. (1999). Teaching English for business, or teaching business in English? English for specific purposes Contradictions and balances, 175-181. Retrieved November 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: www.britishcouncil.hr/egn/ish/esp/spitef.pdf
St. John, M. J.(1996). Business is booming: Business English in the 1990s. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 3-18.
Strevens, P. (1988). The learner and teacher of ESP. In Chamberlain, D. and Baugardner, R.J. (Eds.), ESP in the classroom: Practice and evaluation, ELT Document 128, Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.
Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education. Washingston: Georgetown University Press.
Sturman, P. (1992). Team teaching: A case study from Japan. In David Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press, 141-161.
Swales, J. (1981). Definitions in science and law-evidence for subject-specific course components? Fachsprache (3), 3-4, 106-112.
Swales, J. M. (2000). Language for specific purposes. UK: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 59-76.
Thanasoulas, D. (2002). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Internet TESL Journal,(8),11, 1-7. Retrieved December 14, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://iteslj.org/Articles/thanasoulas-Motivation.html
Tice, J. (1997). The mixed ability class. London: Richmond Publishing.
Tsai, H. H. (2000). The massification and marketization of higher education. Taipei: Yang-Chih Book Co., Ltd.
Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wales, M. L. (1994). Issues in the relationship of general and specific language in workplace ESL: some Australian perspectives. In Rosemary Khoo (Ed.), The practice of ESP: Perspectives, programme and projects. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center, 132-141.
Weir, C. (1988). Academic writing-Can we please all the people all the time? In P. C. Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: process and product, ELT Document 129. London: British Council English Information Center.
Weng, F. T. (2000). Education reform and policy in Taiwan. In Mok, K. H., and Ku, Y. W. (Eds.), Taiwan and Mainland China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Humanities Press.
Westfield, N.L. (1992). Team teaching: A partnership that works! Teacher in the Church Today, 5(2), 8-9. [On line] available: Education Article. Retrieved November 14, 2992, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gbod.org/education/aritcles/team-teaching.html
Wethered, S. (2002). Cooperative teaching-why do it? NWSS Library, 1-2. Retrieved October 14, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://members.shaw.ca/nwsslibrary/reasons for cooperative teaching.htm_
White, G. (1981). The subject specialist and the ESP teacher. In Lexden Center (Ed.), Essays on teaching English for specific purposes by the staff of the Colchester and Bedford English Study Centres, Colchester: Lexden Centre (Oxford) Ltd., 9-14.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). The simplification of use. In Widdowson, H. G. (Ed.), Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185-191.
Widdowson.H. G. (1979). The authenticity of language date. In Widdowson, H. G. (Ed.), Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G.(1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1987). English for specific purposes: criteria for course design. In Michel H. Long and Jack C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 96-104.
Wright, C. (1992). The benefits of ESP. [On line] available: Cambridge language consultants. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.camlang.com/art001.htm
Yeserskaya, L., & Rostovtseva, T. (2002). A case of team-teaching in ESP. Retrieved February 15, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://spelta.spb.ru/proceedings/yeserkl.html
Zuck, L. V., & Zuck, J. (1984). The main idea: specialist and non-specialist judgments. In Pugh, A. K. and Ulijn, J. (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: studies and practices in native and foreign languages studies. London: Heinemann, 130-135.