Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study reports on an investigative study with 70 English majors and 39 non-English-majors in a Chinese university who were recruited using convenience sampling, on their practice ability development motivations and needs, the effectiveness of business English curriculum in practice ability development and practice-oriented curriculum adaptation suggestions, based on two-stage surveys and teacher’s participant observation. The study results generated from numerical theme calculation and response content analysis showed that although the non-English-majors were more motivated than the English-majors, both groups had an intermediate level of practice-oriented motivation. Most English-majors and non-English-majors considered the business English curriculum as effective in enhancing their practice abilities. Regarding curriculum adaptations and post-course activities, most English-majors and non-English-majors encouraged more simulation-based practice and group activities, and the integration of diverse business and trade language and knowledge development activities. The results and research process of the study can inform future research on business English curriculum development.

Plain language summary

A comparative study of practice ability development motivation and curriculum adaptation for advanced business English learners in a Chinese university

This study reports on an investigative study with 70 English majors and 39 non-English-majors in a Chinese university on their practice ability development motivations and needs, the effectiveness of business English curriculum in practice ability development and practice-oriented curriculum adaptation suggestions, based on two-stage surveys and teacher’s observation. The study results generated showed that although the non-English-majors were more motivated than the English-majors, both groups had an intermediate level of practice-oriented motivation. Most English-majors and non-English-majors considered the business English curriculum as effective in enhancing their practice abilities. Regarding curriculum adaptations and post-course activities, most English-majors and non-English-majors encouraged more simulation-based practice and group activities, and the integration of diverse business and trade language and knowledge development activities. The results and research process of the study can inform future research on business English curriculum development.

Keywords

practice ability development motivation curriculum adaptations business English learners English majors non-English majors Chinese university

Introduction

In the field of business English teaching and learning, there have been concerns regarding the final purposes of the curricula, about whether to focus on language, business English vocabulary, communication skills development or preparation for the future world of work. There could be challenges for both teachers and students, as shown in such context as Romania (Zagan-Zelter & Zagan-Zelter, 2010). This study focuses on the purposes of practice ability development, which are related to soft skills development for the workplace context, and curriculum adaptations, or the changes, innovations and reform in the business English courses.

In its official education reform document, China’s Ministry of Education states that undergraduates’ innovation and practice ability should be improved. However, previous studies in the Chinese context indicate the ineffectiveness and problems in business English curricula in practice ability development. In the recent research conducted in China, Ji (2018, p. 156) indicates that business English graduates were unable to meet employers’ requirements in “practice ability, interpersonal skills, professional ability and language communication competence.” Moreover, Ouyang (2016, p. 206) also observes that the current business English curriculum has drawbacks in terms of “lack of business and economics knowledge, practice ability deficiency for different jobs, and out-of-date assessment systems for practice abilities.”Tan and Hu (2019, p. 109) find that business English courses had problems of “unclear teaching objectives, course content which lacks innovation and teaching model needing improvement.” They state that business English course system should be “employment and practice oriented. Teaching objectives, textbook selection and curriculum system should be optimized.” L. Wang and Fan (2021, p. 3) conclude that the elements of “culture, practice, discourse and English language” should be included in the business English courses. Zheng and Cao (2019) in their research suggest that business English practice teaching system should be established based on cross-border e-commerce job requirements.

To address the problems in business English curricula for practice ability development identified in studies conducted in the Chinese context, this study investigates practice ability development motivation and needs in business English teaching, the effectiveness of the business English curricula to enhance practice ability development and curriculum adaptation suggestions in a Chinese university. The study compares and analyzes both English-major and non-English-major participants’ perceptions and perspectives. Theoretically, this study informs business English curriculum development with practice ability development orientation, based on empirical evidence. This study aims to answer the following three research questions:

1. What are English-major and non-English-major participants’ practice ability development motivations and needs in business English learning?

2. How effective is the business English curriculum in improving English-major and non-English-major participants’ practice ability development?

3. What practice-oriented business English curriculum adaptations can be made from English-major and non-English-major participants’ perspectives?

Literature Review

Review of Research on Business English Learning Motivation and Needs

In the field of research on language learning motivation, which began decades ago, it has been found that the transition from traditional grammar translation approach to communicative language teaching has led to the changes in motivational development. There is more emphasis on the motivation of developing “competence” in communication and requires the practice of language skills in the communicative contexts (Lamb et al., 2019, p 5). Motivation has been predicted to have positive effects on the acquisition of pragmatic competence. This has been validated through empirical studies (Yang, 2022). The related motivation research centers on the theories of “intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, amotivation” as well as their linkage with “motivated engagement” (Kim, 2001, p. 215).

It has also been emphasized that teachers can adjust their teaching strategies to enhance positive learner motivational development by making learners feel “competent, autonomous and related.” Thereby, more learner engagement and mental growth can be observed (Opdenakker, 2023, p. 36). In addition, learners’ motivation may change because of changes in their goal orientation. To be able to speak English fluently in the workplace context may be the main learning goal for business English learners, which can be one kind of “integrative motivation” (Griffiths & Soruç, 2020, p. 182). In the Russian context, an empirical study with English as a foreign language students, identifies a positive relationship between students’ communicative competence and “learning, creativity and communication motives.” There is a weak linage between communicative competence and “social, professional, and prestige motivation factors.” Teachers can use pedagogical tools to enhance students’ motivation of learning and the effectiveness of language acquisition (Chiknaverova & Obdalova, 2022, p. 163). Empirically, another study also has identified a positive relationship between “teacher and student autonomous motivation” (Ahn et al., 2021, p. 1), which means teaching motivational practices can influence students’ learning autonomy.

For business English learning, researchers indicate that it is more important for the teachers or trainers to gather information about learners’“purposes of learning,” which involve such information as “what the learners use English for,” the communication target, the communication “topics” and means of communication as well as the context of communication. These findings show that the students’ motivation in business English learning is more practice-oriented, which requires the application of language competence in various business contexts (Ellis & Johnson, 2002, p. 72). One business English researcher also emphasizes that it is important for business English teachers or trainers to know the “level of competence” of learners, their “learning needs and styles,” as well as “business needs.” Business English learning could be related to various workplace contexts. Teachers thus have to tailor the business English curriculum with different student groups (Frendo, 2005, p. 20).

For empirical studies on business English curriculum development in the Chinese contexts, one researcher investigates the business English learning needs, and challenges of 215 working adults in Hong Kong, China and identifies their concerns about business English courses, which forms the basis for future course development (M. Chan, 2014). In the context of mainland China, another researcher investigates year three English majors’ learning motivations, including intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, curriculum needs, professional needs as well as the language skills learning outcomes. There are suggestions for improving the textbooks to include more practice and discourse elements, as well as combining different teaching approaches, including case-based, task-based and genre-based methods (Y. Q. Zhang, 2010). It can be seen that more empirical studies are needed to further investigate business English learners’ practice-oriented motivations and the implications for curriculum development.

Review of Research on Practice Development

The concept of practice has been defined as the cornerstone of all human activities, which include social interaction activities, education and organizational development. Research on practice ability development in the international settings finds that the practices in the workplace contexts link “actions and activities,” and the relationships among people involved in various social settings. Involvement in language learning practices can enhance second language skills and performance (Wilkinson, 2021, p. 36). In the Japanese context, one study shows that the learners’ involvement in out-of-class social networks and writing practices can be connected with classroom learning and enhance their learners’ second language writing skills development (Bankier, 2022).

For business English teaching in the contexts of Chinese vocational college, one study indicates that business English curricula should not only develop language and knowledge, but also practical abilities, which center on real-world workplaces. The teaching approaches should center around tasks and projects, so as to construct professional knowledge systems (Zhao, 2016). Another researcher also calls for business English teachers’ professional development in practice teaching abilities, particularly in vocational college settings (Tian, 2013). It is also further emphasized that business English curricula should focus on knowledge, competence and qualities. The curriculum content, teaching approaches, assessment systems and teaching teams should all center on cultivating business English talent with solid knowledge, competence and high qualities (Jiang, 2022). It can be summarized that business English curricula should focus on practice ability development.

Review of Research on Curriculum Adaptations

Regarding the adaption of curricula, previous studies have demonstrated the efforts to transition from face-to-face teaching to blended learning modes, as shown by Ngoasong (2022) in the African universities, where resources are limited. Curriculum adaptations are realized through “purposeful interactions” with students, the adoption of digital technologies and the formation of learning communities (Ngoasong, 2022, p. 648). Another study addresses the lack of measurement instruments for curriculum adaptations and develops a scale for measuring curriculum adaptation patterns. Their study identifies teachers’ curriculum adaptation patterns of “omitting, extending and replacing or revising” based on the existing curriculum (Yazıcılar Nalbantoğlu et al., 2022, p. 94).

For curriculum adaptations in English courses, in the Thai university context, one study indicates that business English courses are concerned with integrating “specialist business content” and its English for specific purposes approach is combined with Content and Language Integrated Learning pedagogy (Wadsorn, 2019, p. 57). In the Turkish context, another study adapts the curriculum of a vocational school English course for logistics department, based on the investigation results about the needs with professionals, teachers, current students and alumni. The results show that curriculum adaptation should not only focus on language, but also knowledge as well as the problem-based learning scenarios (Ulucay & Demirel, 2011). In the U.S. context, one study identifies teachers’ long-term efforts to innovate English language courses. There are needs of making curriculum adaptations by changing teaching approaches according to the contexts of the courses as well as student needs (Potvin et al., 2021). In another U.S. context, a study reveals the English for academic purposes learning needs in academic English communication tasks. The post-evaluation suggests that the learning needs have been addressed, though there is room for further curriculum improvements (Smith et al., 2022). In the Australian university context, a relevant study has shown the effectiveness and positive contributions of bilingual learning support and strategies, which enable Chinese learners to successfully adapt to the intercultural learning environment (Ashton-Hay et al., 2022).

Curriculum adaptations in business English curricula are also supported by technological assisted innovations. In the recent UK context, multi-communication activities have been integrated into business English courses to prepare students for future workplace tasks (Gimenez, 2023). In the Russian context, one researcher adapts the business English courses with selected input of TED Talk materials, which could develop not only language skills but also communicative competence (Stognieva, 2019).

In the Chinese university context, an earlier study documents an integrated approach in business English curriculum, which incorporates the elements of “business knowledge, business discourse and business practice” (Z. Zhang, 2007, p. 407). In a recent critique, the researcher calls for business English learners’ engagement with the “business discipline and practice” as a member of “the business community” (Z. Zhang, 2023, p. 49). Another recent study emphasizes the use of innovative intercultural teaching processes, which have positive outcomes in business English students’“attitudes, knowledge, skills, and awareness” (Mu & Yu, 2023, p. 1). The latest study also observes the trend of using blended learning as technological innovations in the business English teaching process. Teaching reform of business English courses is one of the focuses of previous research on curriculum adaptation. The research suggests construction of “a technology environment which integrates learners and technological elements” and calls for future research on the effectiveness of curriculum reform (Sun et al., 2024, p. 1). In the context of Hong Kong, China, one scholar suggests that the development and adaptations of business English curricula should be informed by needs analysis, business English discourse research and language pedagogical theories (C. S. C. Chan, 2018). It can be summarized that more research is needed on comprehensive curriculum adaptations and innovations in the new educational context.

Research Methodology

The review of prior studies has shown that there was very limited research which follow the full curriculum framework, to investigate the practice-oriented motivation and needs, effectiveness and curriculum adaptations in the Chinese university context. This study would address the research gap and follows both quantitative and qualitative paradigms, as both numerical data related to responses to rating questions and frequencies of themes identified in answers to open-ended questions and non-numerical information in the forms of typical quotes based on participant perceptions is needed to investigate the needs and perceptions of both English-major and non-English-major participants in the Chinese university context. The participant information and data collection methods, including pre-course and post-course surveys as well as teacher’s participant observation will be introduced in the following sections.

Participants

This study selected participants based on convenience sampling, as all of the participants enrolled in the business English courses offered for English majors and non-English majors, in which the researcher was also the instructor. The response rate was 100%. There are English-major (N = 70) and non-English-major participfants (N = 39) of the study. The average age of English-major participants was 21 years old, with age range from 19 to 23. For English-major participants, there are 17 (24.2%) male and 53 (75.7%) female participants. The average age of non-English-major participants was 20 years old, with age range from 19 to 21. For non-English-major participants, there are 17 (43.5%) male and 22 (56.4%) female participants. All English-major participants were in their third year of study. All non-English-major participants were in their second year of study.

Non-English-major participants’ academic programs are shown in Figure 1. Over 33% of non-English-major participants came from food science and technology program. More than 20% were from automation program. More than 17% were based in the industrial program. Other academic programs included biotechnology (5.1%), brewing (5.1%), Japanese (7.6%), microelectronics (2.5%) and the internet of things (5.1%). It can be seen that there was a mixture of humanity and science and engineering programs.

Figure 1.

Academic programs of non-English-majors.

The participants’ business English levels are presented in Figure 2. Around two-thirds of non-English-major participants and half of the English-major participants categorized themselves at the beginner level. However, less than one third English-major participants were perceived at the high beginner level while only 5% of non-English-major participants considered themselves at this level. More than 17% non-English-major participants self-perceived themselves at the intermediate level while over 15.3% of them reported at the intermediate level, which surpassed greatly English-major participants. Over 4% of English-major participants thought they were at the high intermediate level while none of non-English-major participants perceived themselves as being this level.

Figure 2.

Participants’ business English levels.

The participants’ previous test performance is summarized in Figure 3. More than 70% of English-major participants had passed College English Test-Band 4 (CET-4) while more than 97% of non-English-major participants had passed CET-4. Over 55% of English-major participants had passed College English Test-Band 6 (CET-6) while only over 2.5% of non-English-major participants took part in CET-6. More than 24% of English-major participants also had passed Test of English Major Band 4 (TEM-4) with good performances while none of the non-English-major participants took this test. Over 1.4% of English-major participants and 2.56% of non-English-major participants had taken Business English Certificate Test Vantage. One English-major participant had Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) score while another English-major participant also had an aggregate score of 7.5 in International English Language Test System (IELTS).

Figure 3.

Participants’ previous test performance.

Business English Curriculum

For English-major participants, their business English courses were relevant to international business correspondence writing. There were different topics in line with the international business process, including, inquiries, replies and acknowledgment, order, insurance, packing, transportation, payment, and agencies (X. S. Wang et al., 2012). The teaching process integrated text-based analyses, case analyses, multimedia materials including videos, international business news, online platform learning and simulation group activities. The business English courses ended with a written assessment.

For non-English-major participants, their business English courses focused on reading and writing activities. There are also different topics, including brand, organization, money, advertising, international market, human resources, leadership and ethics (Cotton et al., 2020). The teaching process involved case-based teaching and learning including group discussion and writing, text-based analyses, business English audio and videos learning, international business news reading, and theme-based student presentation. The course also ended with a formal written test.

Data Collection

The data collection instruments included two-stage surveys and participant observation. The first stage survey (see Appendix A1) was administered in February, 2023, during the first week of business English reading and writing course for non-English-major participants and international business correspondence course for English-major participants.

There were eight questions for the stage one survey, adapted from Ngo et al. (2017, p. 201), Xie (2021a, p. 312). These included both rating and open-ended questions, investigating about participants’ practice ability development motivations in English learning, suggestions to bridge the gap between workplace and business English classrooms, suggestions for enhancing business practice and innovation, the participants’ professional and career goals as well as practice ability and skills needed to achieve the goals.

The second stage survey (see Appendix A2) was administered during the end of May to early June, 2023, during the final week of the courses. There were eight questions, including both rating and open-ended questions, adapted from Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 143), Xie (2016, p. 250), Xie (2021b, p. 24) and Xie (2021a, p. 312). The post-course survey investigated the improvement in practice competence, participants’ perceptions of the typical business English course, how are good practices embedded in the business English curriculum, the impact of the course on improving practice skills, the effectiveness of the business English curriculum, suggestions for repeat courses and follow-up of the courses and the perceived learning outcomes. As the survey questions had been used in previous studies, which generated meaningful results, this ensured the reliability and validity of the survey instruments.

Moreover, as the researcher was also the instructor of the business English courses, this offered opportunities for participant observation, as an insider, to gain insights into English-major and non-English-major participants’ practice-oriented motivations, needs, perceptions on the effectiveness of the business English curricula and adaptations that could be made.

Ethical Consideration

This study followed the second language research ethics. Though ethical approval is not required or waived in the Chinese university research context, all participant consent has been obtained, and participants were assured that the study would bring benefits to business English teaching and learning. To protect the confidentiality of the participant and institution identities, pseudonyms are used.

Data Analysis

For the rating questions, the numerical value for each rating was first imported into SPSS 21 and normality tests were conducted. The histograms showed normal distributions, indicating suitability for parametric tests. Then, the means and standard deviations of the responses to the rating questions were calculated and compared between English-major and non-English-major participants, the results of which are presented in tables. Independent samples t-tests using SPSS 21 were then conducted to compare the differences between English-major and non-English-major participants. For open-ended questions, the major themes were identified. The frequencies and percentages of the English-major and non-English-major participants were also calculated and presented in figures. Moreover, the typical quotes mostly in Chinese were selected which provided insights from the participants. The selected quotes were translated by the author and verified by a senior Chinese-English bilingual researcher. This ensured the accuracy and coherence of the translated quotes. Teacher’s participant observation has also been added to offer interpretation to the results.

Results

English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Development Motivation and Needs in Business English Learning

In the pre-course surveys, the participants rated about their intrinsic motivation of business English learning on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least likely while 5 is the most likely, shown in Table 1. An independent samples t-test was conducted between the English-major and the non-English-major participants and the Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.138, which is greater than 0.05, indicating that there were no significant differences in intrinsic motivation between the two groups. For the English-major participants, the means of intrinsic motivation scales ranged from 2.77 to 3.50, with standard deviations from 0.89 to 1.14, which were at intermediate levels. For the non-English-major participants, the means of intrinsic motivation scales ranged from 3.10 to 3.82, with standard deviations from 0.92 to 1.11, which were slightly higher than English-major participants with less variance. Thus, the non-English majors were slightly more intrinsically motivated than the English majors.

Table 1.

Intrinsic Motivation of Business English Learning with English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants.

Intrinsic motivation	Mean (English-majors)	Standard deviation (English-majors	Mean (Non-English-majors)	Standard deviation (Non-English-majors)
I am studying English for the pleasure that I experience in knowing more about the literature of the English speaking group.	2.86	0.91	3.28	0.92
I am studying English because I enjoy the feeling of acquiring knowledge about the English speaking community and their way of life.	3.41	1.00	3.26	0.97
I am studying English for the enjoyment I experience when I grasp a difficult construct in English.	2.77	0.99	3.13	0.95
I am studying English for the satisfied feeling I get in learning new things.	3.43	0.89	3.77	0.99
I am studying English for the pleasure I get from hearing English spoken by English native speakers.	3.13	1.03	3.10	1.02
I am studying English for the satisfaction I feel when I am in the process of accomplishing difficult exercises in English.	2.87	1.05	3.23	1.11
I am studying English for the good feeling when hearing English spoken.	3.43	1.12	3.72	1.10
I am studying English for the good feeling that I experience while speaking in English.	3.50	1.14	3.82	0.97

The personal/professional development motivations of the English-major and the non-English-major participants are shown in Table 2, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least likely while 5 is the most likely. All of the means were over 3, except for studying English for making academic success with English-major participants, the mean of which was 2.81, with standard deviation at 1.23. Moreover, there was considerable variance with the two groups on personal/professional development motivation, as almost all of the standard deviations were over 1. The independent samples t-test showed that there was no significant difference between English-major and non-English-major participants in personal/professional development motivation, as the Sig. (2-tailed) was at 0.081, which is greater than 0.05. However, the mean scores showed that the English-major participants had less motivation for future academic success from learning English.

Table 2.

Personal/Professional Development Motivation of English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants.

Personal/Professional development motivation	Mean (English-majors)	Standard deviation (English-majors	Mean (Non-English-majors)	Standard deviation (Non-English-majors)
I am studying English in order to get a good job later on.	3.60	1.12	4.10	1.02
I am studying English in order to get a more academic success later on.	2.81	1.23	3.56	1.07
I am studying English because I choose to be the kind of person who can speak English.	3.66	1.17	4.08	1.06
I am studying English for the pleasure I experience by improving my English.	3.36	1.04	3.59	1.04
I am studying English because I choose to be the kind of person who can speak more than one language.	3.30	1.20	3.36	1.14
I am studying English because I think it is good for my personal development.	3.77	1.11	4.10	0.94

The amotivation of English-major and non-English-major participants is shown in Table 3, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least likely while 5 is the most likely. All of the means were below 3, which showed that English-major and non-English-major participants had low amotivation. However, the independent samples t-test showed that there were significant differences with the two groups with the Sig. (2-tailed) at 0.036, below 0.05. The effect size value of Cohen’s d was around 0.63, which means that the difference between the English-major and the non-English major participants’ amotivation was at the upper-intermediate level. This showed that the non-English-major participants had much lower amotivation level than the English-major participants.

Table 3.

Amotivation of English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants.

Amotivation	Mean (English-majors)	Standard deviation (English-majors)	Mean (Non-English-majors)	Standard deviation (Non-English-majors)
I don’t know why I am studying English, and frankly, I don’t care.	2.28	1.14	1.62	0.81
I can’t understand why I am studying English.	2.03	1.12	1.38	0.71
I don’t know why I am studying English. I truly have the impression of wasting my time in studying English.	1.73	0.92	1.28	0.76

The English-major and non-English-major participants obligation/avoidance motivation is shown in Table 4. It can be seen that all the means were below 3, which showed a low level of obligation/avoidance motivation with both the English-major and non-English-major participants. The independent samples t-test showed that the Sig. (2-tailed) was at 0.549, greater than 0.05. This showed that there was no significant difference between the English-major and the non-English-major participants on obligation/avoidance motivation. The results related to obligation/avoidance motivation were consistent with those for amotivation.

Table 4.

Obligation/Avoidance Motivation.

Obligation/Avoidance motivation	Mean (English-majors)	Standard deviation (English-majors	Mean (Non-English-majors)	Standard deviation (Non-English-majors)
I am studying English because I would feel guilty if I don’t know English.	2.11	1.15	2.15	0.96
I am studying English to show myself that I am a good student because I can speak English.	2.04	1.05	1.85	0.87
Because I have to meet the requirements/expectations of my university/lecturers/parents.	2.53	1.25	2.31	1.26
I am studying English because I would feel ashamed if I could not speak English when I communicate with my friends from English speaking countries.	2.27	1.25	2.26	1.19

The English major participants’ suggestions to bridge the gap between the workplace and the classrooms are summarized in Figure 4. More than 41% of the participants suggested various simulation activities in the classroom. Participant 1 said that such activities could “enhance application of theoretical knowledge to practice” (Translation). Participant 2 added “a suitable English environment similar to the real workplace should be created” (Translation).

Figure 4.

English-majors’ suggestions to bridge the gap between workplace and classrooms.

More than 31% of the participants suggested enhancing practice and knowledge about the workplace such as through internship. Participant 5 suggested “introducing more information about the real workplace and experiencing how English is used in the workplace” (Translation).

More than 14% of the participants hoped that more cases could be introduced. Participant 8 mentioned that “demonstration of workplace cases could be made individually or in groups, beyond the textbooks” (Translation). Other suggestions included introducing more videos (12.85%), business knowledge (8.57%) and collaboration or communication with business professional, foreigners or business majors (4.28%). It can be summarized that most of the suggestions including simulations, internships, case-based learning and collaboration with business professionals would be beneficial for practice ability development.

The non-English-major participants’ suggestions for bridging the gap between the workplace and the classrooms are shown in Figure 5. More than 48% of the non-English-major participants suggested simulation activities and lectures on workplace communication in the classrooms. Participant 9 said “through simulation, the workplace mentality can be developed. This could make the business English classroom real and close to the workplace” (Translation).

Figure 5.

Non-English-majors’ suggestions to bridge the gap between workplace and classrooms.

Other suggestions included more business cases (12.82%), watching business English videos (10.25%), business English related practices (7.69%), sharing of business professionals (7.69%) and interpreting (2.56%). For example, participant 13 mentioned “connecting with the senior entering in the foreign companies and sharing of their experiences” (Translation). However, participants 14 also mentioned that “due to differences in thinking and environment, it may be difficult to bridge the gap between the workplace and classroom. The classroom cannot be equal to workplace” (Translation). The non-English-major participants’ suggestions were also practice ability development oriented, such as simulations and case-based learning. However, there was also recognition that it may be difficult to replicate real workplace conditions in the classrooms.

The English major participants’ suggestions to enhance practice and innovation abilities are shown in Figure 6. More than 51% of the English major participants hoped to have simulations and practice activities including group work. Participant 15 hoped to add “recent trade activities and enhance cognition about business practice” (Translation).

Figure 6.

English majors’ suggestions to enhance practice and innovation abilities.

More than 24% of the English-major participants suggested more reading, writing, listening and speaking activities. Participant 17 said “there should be more listening and practice to enhance the abilities and experiences. She could then build on others’ successes and apply knowledge into practice” (Translation). Moreover, more than 15% of the participants mentioned more business news from the social media, videos and employment information. This included “bilingual current news and to respect the cultural differences” (Participant 18, Translation). More than 14% of the participants mentioned the need to learn more business and trade knowledge.

The English majors’ other suggestions included internship or direct experience with trade companies (7.14%), further study (1.43%), communicating with teachers and classmates (1.43%), and preparing for business English exams (1.43%). The English majors’ suggestions were more direct and applicable, building closer connections with the workplaces.

The non-English majors’ suggestions to enhance practice and innovation abilities are shown in Figure 7. More than 42% of the non-English major participants mentioned business simulation and communication activities. These included “workplace English communication simulation” (Participant 20, Translation), “creativity skills training and more social activities” (Participant 21, Translation), “communication with native English speakers” (Participant 22, Translation), “applying course content to daily work and practice” (Participant 23, Translation), and “simulating practical situation problems and suggesting response strategies” (Participant 24, Translation).

Figure 7.

Non-English majors’ suggestions to enhance innovation and practice abilities.

More than 33% of the non-English major participants suggested more guided exercises and language learning. This included “oral English training” (Participant 26, Translation). Participant 27 explained that “this included basic knowledge of vocabulary, syntax and grammar. Moreover, the after-class assignment should be linked with the practical skills, such as writing emails and reports” (Translation).

More than 17% of the non-English major participants mentioned learning business knowledge, news and cases. Participant 26 mentioned the needs “to learn business and economic books and current news” (Translation).

More than 7% of the non-English major participants also indicated the needs to have internships in the companies. Overall, the non-English-major participants’ suggestions were also practical and feasible to link classroom teaching with real world practices.

For the English-major participants’ professional and career objectives, 30% of the participants hoped to improve their English skills and work in the English industry. Participant 29 mentioned “comprehensive development in listening, speaking, reading and writing. It was not just about English language, but to address some issues and tasks in English” (Translation). More than 24% of the participants aimed to be an English teacher in either middle school or universities. More than 21% of the participants aimed to work in foreign or trade businesses.

Moreover, 20% of the English-major participants had further study plans. These included interdisciplinary learning in law, business, economics and humanities. Participant 33 explained “she hoped to further study in humanity programs. She would conduct social activities in cultural knowledge communication and expansion of public awareness” (Translation).

Other professional and career objectives focused on translation and interpretation (2.86%), public affairs and government work (2.86%), photography (1.43%) and the news industry (1.43%).

The English-major participants’ needed practice abilities and skills are summarized in Figure 8. More than 72% of the English-major participants especially mentioned English skills, including oral communication, reading, writing, listening, professional terms and translation.

Figure 8.

English major participants’ needed practice abilities and skills.

More than 25% of the English-major participants mentioned various soft skills, including interpersonal skills, the ability to work under pressure, negotiation, problem solving, quick response etc. Participant 35 mentioned “the ability to flexibly deal with emergencies, responsibility and ethics, as well as the ability to apply learning to professional contexts” (Translation).

In addition, 20% of the English-major participants mentioned interdisciplinary knowledge including business, foreign trade and psychology. Other practice abilities and skills included teaching and education skills (8.57%), internship experiences (5.71%), photography skills (1.43%), computer skills (1.43%) as well as government and political knowledge (1.43%). It can be seen that the English major participants’ career and professional objectives as well as needed practice abilities and skills were diverse and linked to different industrial sectors, such as business, humanities, law, education and translation, for which the teachers should design the business English curriculum appropriately to cater to the diverse needs.

For non-English major participants’ career and professional objectives, more than 20% of the participants, mostly food science and technology majors, hoped to have further studies either in China or overseas. More than 15% of the participants hoped to be designers, including industrial design, media design and interactive design.

More than 20% of the participants hoped to improve their English skills and to pass English proficiency tests. More than 7% of the non-English major participants even hoped to use English to write and publish articles. More than 10% of the non-English major participants planned to work in the computer science related industries, including programing and the internet of things. Other career and professional objectives included starting own companies and project management (5.13%), bioscience researchers (2.56%), and working in multinational companies or organizations (7.69%).

The non-English-major participants’ needed practice abilities and skills are summarized in Figure 9. Over 69% of the non-English-major participants mentioned the needs to improve their English skills. Participant 40 said this included “English abilities which could meet workplace needs” (Translation). Participant 41 mentioned “adequate vocabulary and understanding about the differences in writing styles between Chinese and foreigners” (Translation).

Figure 9.

Non-English major participants’ needed practice abilities and skills.

More than 30% of the non-English-major participants needed to improve professional knowledge and skills, including design and experimenting etc. Participant 43 mentioned “modeling, hand painting and design thinking” (Translation). Participant 44 mentioned “user surveys, software use etc.” (Translation). Participant 45, a food science and technology major, mentioned “the ability to experiment and use the instruments correctly” (Translation).

More than 28% of the non-English-major participants needed various soft skills, including “creativity, communication and leadership” (Participant 43, Translation). Participant 44 mentioned “the skills to understand the society and recognize the situations so that she would know what to do to adapt to the society” (Translation). Participant 45 indicated “strong learning ability and self-control, research ability, flexible thinking and creativity” (Translation). Over 2% of the non-English-major participants mentioned the knowledge about the international companies. It can be seen that the non-English-major participants’ career and professional objectives were more related to their academic programs. They also aimed to improve their language and soft skills as parts of needed practical ability and skills.

Effectiveness of the Business English Curriculum in Improving English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Ability Development

In the post-course surveys, for effectiveness of the business English curriculum, more than 78% of the English-major participants considered it as effective in improving their business English communicative competence. This was due to that they could learn business knowledge and etiquette, business correspondence writing practice and professional terms, to adapt to the real workplaces. More than 74% of the English-major participants also praised the positive impact of the curriculum on practice skills development. This included analytical and problem-solving ability, teamwork, international business correspondence writing, business etiquette and professional vocabulary.

For the non-English-major participants, more than 87% considered the business English curriculum to be effective in improving their business English communicative competence. The non-English-major participants gained business English reading and writing skills, business knowledge, oral communication and presentation skills, and business English vocabulary. Over 84% of the non-English-major participants mentioned the positive impact of the curriculum on practice ability development. These included oral communication, debating, business thinking skills, understanding business cases, translation, CV and business English writing, case-based discussion and business knowledge.

More specifically, the English-majors and non-English-majors’ improvements in practice competence are summarized in Table 5, in a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest. To compare the means of practice competence improvement in the English-major and the non-English-majors, independent samples T-test was conducted and the results showed that the Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.280, greater than 0.05. This showed that there were no significant differences in English and non-English-major groups in practice competence improvement.

Table 5.

English-Majors and Non-English-Majors’ Improvements in Practice Competence.

Improvement in practice competence	Mean (English-majors)	Standard deviation (English-majors)	Mean (Non-English-majors)	Standard deviation (Non-English-majors)
Intercultural business communicative competence	3.66	0.82	3.37	1.14
Business practice	3.48	0.83	3.37	1.00
Business English language use	3.98	0.70	3.77	0.81
Learner autonomy	3.64	0.80	3.89	0.99
Innovation and critical thinking skills	3.36	0.78	3.77	0.97
Decision-making	3.20	0.84	3.69	0.99
Teamwork and group cooperation	3.57	0.91	4.14	0.81

For the English majors, business English language use had the highest mean of over 3.9, with standard deviation at 0.70. This was followed by intercultural business communicative competence, learner autonomy and teamwork and group cooperation with means at around 3.5 and 3.6, with standard deviations between 0.8 and 0.9. Though other practice competence had lower means, they were all above 3, which showed an intermediate level of improvement.

For the non-English-majors, teamwork and group cooperation had the highest mean at over 4.1, with standard deviation at over 0.8. This was followed by learner autonomy, innovation and critical thinking skills and business English language use, with means at around 3.7 and 3.8, standard deviations at between 0.8 and 0.9. Intercultural business communicative competence, business practice and decision-making were lower, though there were also above 3, at the intermediate level. The results showed the positive impact of the business English curriculum on various dimensions of practice competence.

For the English-major participants’ specific learning gains, more than 42% mentioned improvement in their trade correspondence writing skills. Over 32% of the participants improved their international trade vocabulary and trade knowledge respectively. This included the various stages of the trade process and how to process the trade documents.

Moreover, 20% of the participants mentioned they improved business communication and practice skills. This included “using English in making inquiries, ordering and consignment delivery” (Translation, Participant 57).

Over 11% of participants enhanced language skills generally. Over 7% of the participants also mentioned they improved group cooperation and communication skills. Other improvements were shown in translation skills (2.86%), innovative thinking skills, confidence and patience (2.86%).

For the non-English-major participants’ specific learning gains, more than 38% mentioned they improved business English language skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing. Over 30% mentioned they improved business English vocabulary. More than 28% also improved their business and cultural knowledge such as business etiquette and the workplace context.

Other learning gains were in group cooperation skills (17.9%), business thinking, innovation and critical thinking skills (7.69%), presentation skill (5.12%), self-learning and interest in business English (2.56%) as well as business practice skills (7.69%). It can be seen that the English-major and non-English-major participants’ learning gains were relevant to both language competence and practice competence.

Practice-Oriented Business English Curriculum Adaptations From English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Perspectives

The participants offered suggestions for practice-oriented business English curriculum adaptations in the post-course surveys. The English major participants’ perceptions of a typical business English class are shown in Figure 10. More than 45% of the English-major participants mentioned that they had cooperative and interactive teaching models, including group discussion, case analyses, presentations and role plays. Participant 46 said “the teacher divided the class into four groups, and they had presentations. He participated in one of the production processes and gained a lot” (Translation).

Figure 10.

English-majors’ perceptions of a typical business English class.

More than 35% of the English-major participants mentioned learning business and trade expressions and knowledge. This could include “learning practical business English knowledge and international business interactions, as well as the meaning of the knowledge” (Participant 48, Translation).

More than 31% of the participants mentioned learning to read and write business correspondence. Participant 49 mentioned learning about reading packing letter samples and writing packing letters. Thirty percent of participants also had translation practice of business correspondence texts.

Over 17% of the participants watched videos and learned additional business knowledge, including “business etiquette” (Participant 50). Participants also learned business and trade news (12.86%) as well as had simulation and practice activities (7.14%). The results indicate that for the English-major participants, the business English curriculum should incorporate effective teaching models, business expressions and knowledge, as well as practice-related elements such as correspondence writing.

The non-English major participants’ perceptions of a typical business English class are shown in Figure 11. More than 76% the participants mentioned case group discussion. Participant 50 said “she participated in the case discussion, which was in different groups. Everyone had the chance of communication. Finally, one student represented the group to share the discussion results” (Translation).

Figure 11.

Non-English-majors’ perceptions of a typical business English class.

More than 41% of the participants mentioned reading and text translation as well as making presentations about different business cases in various industries. Moreover, more than 25% of the participants were impressed with answering teacher questions and oral practice in class. More than 15% of the participants were also impressed with watching videos and doing listening practice.

Other elements included English exams (2.56%), business news reading (2.56%), business simulation activities (2.56%) and writing practice (2.56%). These findings indicate that for the non-English majors, business English curricula should also include effective teaching activities for language training and practice ability development, such as simulation.

Suggestions about excellent practice embedded in business English curriculum from the English majors’ perspectives are shown in Figure 12. More than 32% of the participants hoped to have more scenario-based simulation and practice activities. Participant 51 mentioned “simulating the real-world situations, and there could be more student-teacher and student-student interactions. These could enhance students’ language abilities” (Translation).

Figure 12.

Excellent practice embedded in business English curriculum from English majors’ perspectives.

More than 18% of the participants hoped to have more communication and engagement with students with interesting content. Participant 52 said “students should be centered. Students can apply their knowledge. Simply explaining the language points could be too boring” (Translation). Over 12% of the participants hoped to introduce more real-world cases. Over 8% of the participants mentioned integrated language skills and knowledge learning.

Other excellent practice included translation practice (1.43%), visits to or placement in business (1.43%), watching more videos (1.43%), using technology (2.86%) and more situation-based writing practice (1.43%). These suggestions were consistent with the English-major participants’ practice ability development motivation and needs, with more practice-oriented activities, including scenario-based simulation.

Excellent practice embedded in business English curriculum from the non-English majors’ perspectives is summarized in Figure 13. Over 30% of the non-English-major participants also mentioned student-based simulation and practice, such as drama. Participant 52 mentioned that “situations can be embedded in business activities. There could be many roles to play like performance in the drama.” (Translation). Participant 53 mentioned “simulating the product launch, meetings or negotiations” (Translation).

Figure 13.

Excellent practice embedded in business English curriculum from non-English majors’ perspectives.

Other excellent practice included enhancing students’ self-learning (2.56%), more business English competition (2.56%), watching more videos (7.69%), more information about business etiquette and business knowledge (5.13%), using AI technology (for face-to-face communication; 2.56%), more task-based teaching (2.56%), more interactions and engagement between teachers and students (7.69%), expert lectures (7.70%), case-based writing and teaching (5.13%) as well as corporate visit (5.13%). The non-English-major participants’ suggestions showed the diversity of practice ability development activities, which also called for the support of technology.

For the English-major participants’ suggestions for curriculum adaptations, more than 35% of the participants suggested more simulation-based practice and group activities, to enhance practice abilities. Other suggestions included making the class more interesting and livelier (4.29%), introducing more real-life cases (2.86%), engaging students (2.86%), more exercises and writing practices (4.29%), giving feedback on writing (2.86%), more real-life cases (2.86%) and more oral activities (2.86%). One participant suggested more videos about real trade activities, explained as follows:

When playing videos, the teacher could choose business communication in the real-world contexts. There are many relevant trade related videos online. (Translation, Participant 53).

For non-English-major participants’ suggestions for curriculum adaptations, more than 25% of the participants hoped to have more extended writing practice and extended learning and knowledge beyond the book and the classroom. This included both writing and listening practices. Over 17% of the participants hoped to have more free discussion and oral communication activities. Participant 54 explained that this included one-on-one communication or even debates based on business topics. More than 12% of the participants also hoped to have more simulation-based practice. Other suggestions included more competitions (2.56%), more diverse case analyses (2.56%) and more business English language guidance and explanations (7.69%). The results show that most of the English majors and non-English majors wanted the curriculum adaptations to include content and knowledge beyond the classroom contexts.

The English-major participants’ suggestions for post-course activities are shown in Figure 14. As shown, 40% of the English-major participants suggested more practice-based and simulation activities. Participant 55 praised the “group practice in week 7, in which students practiced correspondence writing” (Translation). More than 7% of the participants suggested introducing more international trade situations and cases. Over 4% of the participants suggested corporate visit.

Figure 14.

English majors’ suggestions for post-course activities.

Other suggestions included reading trade news (1.43%), more correspondence writing practice (1.43%), debating (1.43%), self-learning (1.43%) and more interesting videos (2.86%).

The non-English-major participants’ suggestions for post-course activities are summarized in Figure 15. More than 12% of the non-English-major participants suggested more presentation and group discussion. More than 7% of the participants also mentioned business simulations and corporate visits. Participant 56 said “they could participate in the business situations” (Translation). Other suggestions included more listening and writing practice (5.13%), more real practice videos (2.56%) and debates (2.56%). These suggested post-course activities would help to further link the classroom with workplaces, which sustained the learning process.

Figure 15.

Non-English-majors’ suggestions for post-course activities.

As the research and also the business English teacher, participant observation has shown that both the English-major and non-English-major participants were enthusiastic about practice-based activities, including making presentations, group simulation activities and case group discussion. Curriculum adaptations should be made to further design and implement such practice-based activities.

Discussion

English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Development Motivation and Needs in Business English Learning

For motivation, there were no significant differences between the English-major and the non-English-major participants, except in the dimensions of amotivation, in which the non-English-major participants had much lower level. Moreover, intrinsically, the non-English-major participants were slightly more motivated than the English-major participants. Moreover, it can be summarized that both English-major and non-English-major participants had intermediate levels of practice ability development motivation. It implies that both English-major and non-English-major participants had positive perceptions of learning English and developing practice abilities. The previous study of Gan et al. (2023) assesses the functions of the dimensions of self-efficacy, task value, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in learner responses to teacher feedback. This study provides unique insights of practice ability development motivation of China’s English majors and non-English majors, which place motivational studies in the business English teaching and learning context.

For bridging the gap between workplace and classroom, both the English-major and the non-English-major participants suggested practice ability development pedagogies, including, simulations, internships, case-based learning and collaborations with business professionals and foreigners. Similar practice-based pedagogies, such as simulations and practice-based group work, internship, and guided language practice were suggested by both English-major and non-English-major participants to enhance their practice and innovation abilities. It can be seen that business simulation and practice activities were most preferred by both English-majors and non-English-majors, which could bring positive impact on developing skills and competence needed by the workplaces. The findings of this study are similar to the study results of Xie (2021a, p. 303), which emphasize the important contributions of simulation activities in bridging the gap between workplace and classrooms.

For professional objectives, it can be summarized from the study that the English-major participants hoped to improve their English language skills, and the practice abilities to work in the relevant industries. The practice abilities included various soft skills including interpersonal skills, the ability to work under pressure, negotiation, problem solving, and quick response. They hoped to make good preparation for both the workplace and further study. On the other hand, the non-English-major participants had stronger needs in English language learning, further academic study preparation and academic publishing in English. They also aimed to improve English language skills for their future career in international companies. These diverse professional objectives and needed skills define different learning purposes of China’s English majors and non-English-major participants. Ellis and Johnson (2002) also categorize the learning purposes of pre-experience learners as those aims relating to “study and future career” (p. 72). These findings are providing important foundations for the business English curriculum adaptation.

Effectiveness of the Business English Curriculum in Improving English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Ability Development

The majority of both the English-major and the non-English-major participants thought that the business English courses were effective. The business English curriculum had a positive impact on both language skills development and practice ability development. The practice abilities improved included analytical and problem-solving ability, teamwork, international business correspondence writing, business etiquette and professional vocabulary etc. These were achieved through diverse practice-oriented teaching approaches, such as case-based discussion, business correspondence writing and oral communication and business presentation activities. The results of this study have added additional dimension of the effectiveness of business English curriculum in improving practice abilities, on the comparative basis of the previous study of Xie (2021a).

Moreover, there were no significant differences between the English-major and the non-English-major participants in improvement in practice competences. Moreover, both the English-major and the non-English-major participants had intermediate levels of improvement in practice competences. These included business communication, learner autonomy, teamwork and group cooperation, innovation and critical thinking and business English language use. Due to more case-based group activities, non-English-major participants had the most improvement in teamwork and group cooperation. According to Basturkmen (2006, p. 133), the objectives of teaching English for specific purposes, which business English falls under, include “develop target performance competence, knowledge, strategic competence and critical awareness.” The results of this study provide empirical evidence, which is in line with the purposes of business English teaching.

Due to the differences in the business English curriculum, the English-major participants and the non-English-major participants had differentiated learning gains. The English-major participants had more gains in trade correspondence writing, trade knowledge, language skills, as well as soft skills including innovation thinking, confidence and patience. The non-English-major participants gained more in presentation and group cooperation, as well as business practice skills. The results of this study provide positive information about the learning gains from the learners’ perspectives, which the teachers should encourage, as supported by Harding (2007, p. 154) related to evaluation and review in English for specific purposes teaching.

Practice-Oriented Business English Curriculum Adaptations From English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Perspectives

For perceptions about the business English curriculum, both the English-major and non-English-major participants were impressed with the teaching approaches used by the instructor. For the English-major participants, the elements of group discussion, case analyses, presentation, role plays, learning trade terms and knowledge, correspondence writing, videos, news reading and simulation were important. For the non-English-major participants, they would add case group discussion, reading and translation, presentations, and language-based practices. This study thus provides additional information about the diverse elements to include in the business English curriculum in the Chinese university context, which supports the previous study findings in M. Chan (2014) regarding workplace professionals in Hong Kong, China.

For suggestions about excellent practice embedded in business English curriculum, similar elements such as scenario-based simulation and practice activities, communication activities, and real-world cases to integrate language and knowledge learning, as well as situation-based writing practice, simulation and practice were suggested by the English-major participants. On the other hand, the non-English-major participants valued not only language learning, but also soft skills development such as business etiquette and face-to-face communication skills through AI technology. The results of this study provide concrete evidence for the possible design of “input materials and output tasks” (Cheng, 2011, p. 54) for the development of business English curriculum.

About suggestions for curriculum adaptations or changes in the curriculum, the English-major participants hoped to include more simulation-based practice, group activities, real-life cases and writing practice. The non-English-major participants hoped to have further extension in writing and oral communication, as well as simulation-base practice, case analyses and guidance in language learning. These suggestions could also be extended to post-course activities. The results of this study provide additional suggestions on curriculum adaptations, which include more “extending” and “revising” practices (Yazıcılar Nalbantoğlu et al., 2022, p. 94). These empirically support the results from previous studies.

Conclusions

This study reports on an investigative study with 70 English majors and 39 non-English-majors in a Chinese university, on their practice ability development motivations and needs, the effectiveness of business English curriculum in practice ability development and practice-oriented curriculum adaptations suggestions, based on two-stage surveys and teacher’s participant observation.

The results of the study showed that though the non-English-majors were more motivated than the English-majors, both the groups had an intermediate level of practice-oriented motivation. Most of the English-majors and non-English-majors hoped to organize more simulation and practice activities to bridge the gap between the workplace and the classrooms and enhance their practice abilities, as they had diverse industry-based professional objectives and needs. Most of the English-majors and non-English-majors considered the business English curricula as effective in enhancing their practice abilities, with no significant differences between the two groups and specific learning gains in language, knowledge and soft skills development. For curriculum adaptations and post-course activities, most English-majors and non-English-majors encouraged more simulation-based practice and group activities, as well as the integration of diverse business and trade language and knowledge development activities.

This study extends the current business English teaching and learning theories, by extending, revising and adapting the curriculum framework using the practice-oriented concepts. This expands the theoretical scope of business English teaching and learning research, which brings it closer to workplace needs and makes learners better prepared for their future career. For practitioners, this study is exemplary in showing how investigating the student perceptions can help enhance the curriculum and how teachers can make appropriate adaptations to gain better learning outcomes. For policy, this study provides empirical evidence for further developing the business English curriculum standards. For limitations, though this study is conducted with only one Chinese university context, the research process and methodologies can be replicable for research in other educational and cultural contexts. Future research can focus on simulation and practice-based curriculum innovation, to further bridge the gap between the workplace and the classrooms.

Footnotes

Appendices

Appendix A2

Adapted from Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 143), Xie (2016, p. 250), Xie (2021b, p. 24), Xie (2021a, p. 312)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express heartfelt thanks to the participants for their helpful contributions to the study. The authors are also grateful for the expert comments from editors and reviewers for revising this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by 2022 World Language and Culture Research Project [WYZL2022JS0002] and Jiangnan University Educational Reform Project Fund: An Exploration of the Application of Generative AI in Improving College English Teaching Quality [JGZX240717].

Ethics Statement

This study followed the second language research ethics. Though ethical approval is not required or waived in the Chinese university research context, all participant consent has been obtained and participants were assured that the study would bring benefits to business English teaching and learning.

ORCID iD

Qing Xie

Data Availability Statement

The data are confidential and not accessible in public.

References

Ahn

Chiu

M. M.

Patrick

(2021). Connecting teacher and student motivation: Student-perceived teacher need-supportive practices and student need satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101950

Ashton-Hay

S. A.

Lamberton

Zhou

von der Heidt

(2022). Bilingual learning strategies to support Chinese EAL business students. Journal of International Education in Business, 15(2), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-10-2020-0083

Bankier

(2022). Socialization into English academic writing practices through out-of-class interaction in individual networks of practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 56, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100889

Basturkmen

(2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Chan

C. S. C.

(2018). Proposing and illustrating a research-informed approach to curriculum development for specific topics in business English. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.07.001

Chan

(2014). Communicative needs in the workplace and curriculum development of business English courses in Hong Kong. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 376–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490614545987

Cheng

(2011). ESP classroom research: Basic considerations and future questions. In Belcher

Johns

A. M.

Paltridge

(Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 44–72). The University of Michigan Press.

Chiknaverova

Obdalova

(2022). Affecting students’ motivation to foster foreign language acquisition: Juggling pedagogical tools and psychological diagnostics in the university classroom. In Al-Mahrooqi

Denman

C. J.

(Eds.), Individual and contextual factors in the English language classroom (Vol. 24, pp. 163–184). English Language Education.

Cotton

Falvey

Kent

(Eds.). (2020). Market leader intermediate business English course book (3rd ed.). Higher Education Press.

10.

Dudley-Evans

St John

M. J.

(1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach (p. 143). Cambridge University Press.

11.

Ellis

Johnson

(2002). Teaching business English. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

12.

Frendo

(2005). How to teach business English. Pearson, Longman.

13.

Gan

Liu

Nang

(2023). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in students’ feedback engagement in English learning. Behavioral Sciences, 13(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050428

14.

Gimenez

(2023). Integrating multi-communication research and the business English class. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 87–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.008

15.

Griffiths

Soruç

(2020). 12 Motivation. In Griffiths

Soruç

(Eds.), Individual differences in language learning: A complex systems theory perspective (pp. 181–196). Springer Nature Switzerland.

16.

Harding

(2007). English for specific purposes. Oxford University Press.

17.

Jiang

H. Y.

(2022). Comprehensive business English teaching reform based on business English guidebook [Ji Yu Shang Ying Zhi Nan de Zong He Shang Wu Ying Yu Ke Cheng Gai Ge Tan Jiu]. Modern Business Trade Industry No. 17, 52–54.

18.

S. B.

(2018). A survey study of business English graduates’ production practice ability [Shang Wu Ying Yu Zhuan Ye Bi Ye Sheng de Sheng Chan Shi Jian Neng Li Diao Cha Fen Xi]. Business Collection, 2018.7, 155–156.

19.

Kim

T. Y.

(2001). Historical development of English learning motivation research. English Language Education 21. Springer Nature Singapore.

20.

Lamb

Csizér

Henry

Ryan

(2019). 1 Introduction. In Lamb

(Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 1–17). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

21.

(2023). Developing intercultural competence in college business English students: A study of innovative teaching in China. International Journal of Intercultural Relations: IJIR, 92, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.101747

22.

Ngoasong

M. Z.

(2022). Curriculum adaptation for blended learning in resource-scarce contexts. Journal of Management Education, 46(4), 622–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629211047168

23.

Ngo

Spooner-Lane

Mergler

(2017). A comparison of motivation to learn English between English major and non-English major students in a Vietnamese university. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1094076

24.

Opdenakker

M. C.

(2023). Chapter 3 teacher and teaching behaviour and student motivational outcomes: Critical reflections on the knowledge base and on future research. In Maulana

(Ed.), Effective teaching around the World (pp. 29–83). Springer Nature.

25.

Ouyang

W. P.

(2016). Exploring effective business English curriculum serving regional economic development [Shi Jian Tan Suo Shang Wu Ying Yu Zhuan Ye You Xiao Fu Wu Qu Yu Jing Ji Neng Li de Ti Sheng]. Regional Economy [Qu Yu Jing Ji], 2016 (22), 829, 206–207.

26.

Potvin

A. S.

Boardman

A. G.

Stamatis

(2021). Consequential change: Teachers scale project-based learning in English language arts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103469

27.

Smith

G. F.

Jung

Zenker

(2022). From task-based needs analysis to curriculum evaluation: Putting methodological innovations to the test in an English for academic purposes program. English for Specific Purposes, 66, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.01.001

28.

Stognieva

(2019). Teaching business English with TED talks: Putting ideas into practice. Journal of Language and Education, 5(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.7995

29.

Sun

Asmawi

Dong

Zhang

(2024). Exploring the transformative power of blended learning for business English majors in China (2012–2022) – A bibliometric voyage. Heliyon, 10(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24276

30.

Tan

B. C.

(2019). Business English practice teaching research under the guidance of employability [Ji Yu Jiu Ye Neng Li Dao Xiang de Shang Wu Ying Yu Shi Jian Jiao Xue Yan Jiu]. Journal of Puer University, 35(2), 109–110.

31.

Tian

X. W.

(2013). Exploring business English teachers’ practice abilities development [Shang Wu Ying Yu Jiao Shi Shi Jian Neng Li Fa Zhan Tan Suo]. Course Education Research (Foreign Language and Literature), 2013(1), 109–110.

32.

Ulucay

Demirel

Ö.

(2011). Perceptions of professionals, academicians and current and graduate students on designing an ESP curriculum for logistics department. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 794–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.1872011.

33.

Wadsorn

(2019). Integrating CLIL within business English teaching: The case of a Thai International University. The International J ournal of Humanities Education, 17(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0063/CGP/v17i01/57-71

34.

Wang

Fan

(2021). Chapter 1 Core issues in business English education in China. In Wang

Fan

(Eds.), Working towards a proficiency scale of business English writing: A mixed-methods approach (pp. 1–8). Springer Nature Singapore.

35.

Wang

X. S.

Zhang

C. G.

X. Y.

(Eds.). (2012). Up-to-date correspondence for import & export (3rd ed.). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

36.

Wilkinson

(2021). Educational leadership through a practice lens: Practice matters. Springer Nature Singapore.

37.

Xie

(2016). English language training in the workplace: Case studies of corporate programs in China. Technical and vocational education and training: Issues, concerns and prospects (Vol. 22). Springer International Publishing.

38.

Xie

(2021a). Applying vocational education and training pedagogy in business English courses for China’s English major undergraduates. Education+Training, 63(2), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2020-0183

39.

Xie

(2021b). Using production-oriented approach in business English courses: Perceptions of China’s English-major and non-English-major undergraduates. Sage Open, 11(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016553

40.

Yang

(2022). Language learning motivation and L2 pragmatic competence. Springer Nature Singapore.

41.

Yazıcılar Nalbantoğlu

Ü.

Bümen

N. T.

Uslu

. (2022). Teachers’ curriculum adaptation patterns: A scale development study. Teacher Development, 26(1), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2021.1996452

42.

Zagan-Zelter

(2010). Teaching business English – A challenge both for students and academics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.039

43.

Zhang

Y. Q.

(2010). An empirical study of needs analysis of learning business English. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and forestry university (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 13(4), 98–102.

44.

Zhang

(2007). Towards an integrated approach to teaching business English: A Chinese experience. English for Specific Purposes, 26(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.006

45.

Zhang

(2023). Becoming a member of the business community. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.006

46.

Zhao

Y. N.

(2016). Enlightenment of action-paradigmed vocational competence on curriculum reform in vocational colleges: Take business English curriculum for example. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 35(10), 63–65.

47.

Zheng

C. L.

Cao

Y. W.

(2019). Construction of practical teaching system for business English major under the guidance of cross-border e-commerce post competence. Journal of Harbin University, 40(8), 135–138.

A Comparative Study of Practice Ability Development Motivation and Curriculum Adaptation for Advanced Business English Learners in a Chinese University

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Review of Research on Business English Learning Motivation and Needs

Review of Research on Practice Development

Review of Research on Curriculum Adaptations

Research Methodology

Participants

Business English Curriculum

Data Collection

Ethical Consideration

Data Analysis

Results

English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Development Motivation and Needs in Business English Learning

Effectiveness of the Business English Curriculum in Improving English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Ability Development

Practice-Oriented Business English Curriculum Adaptations From English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Perspectives

Discussion

English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Development Motivation and Needs in Business English Learning

Effectiveness of the Business English Curriculum in Improving English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Practice Ability Development

Practice-Oriented Business English Curriculum Adaptations From English-Major and Non-English-Major Participants’ Perspectives

Conclusions

Footnotes

Appendices

Appendix A2

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics Statement

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References