〈Other (project introduction)〉

Developments in the Pharmacy English Program
Steven Silsbee

Introduction and Background
It is important for pharmacists to communicate not only with customers, but also with otherpharmacists and members of the health profession. Although English language skills and communication
skills are not the same, good English skills are the necessary for good communicative ability when thelanguage is used (Stupans, March, & Elliott, 2009). This is especially relevant to the fields of
medicine and pharmaceutical sciences, due to the crucial role they play in society, and the necessity topresent clear and accurate information. In the scientific community, English has become the lingua
franca, with 80 percent of all journals in the Scopus database being written in English (van Weijen,2012). While researchers continue to publish in their own language, it seems that for their work toreach a global audience, they would be well advised to publish in English.
As tourism continues to rise in Japan, the country’s pharmacies and drug makers are working tofacilitate communication with visitors who speak little or no Japanese (Japanese Pharmacies and Drugmakers, 2017). This will be critical in 2020, when Japan plays host to the Summer Olympics, and is
expected to see 33 million visitors arrive that year. A vast majority of these visitors will have little orno knowledge of the Japanese language, but likely have some level of ability to communicate inEnglish (Maennig, 2017).
Additionally, Japan is experiencing a declining and ageing population, and is looking at
immigration as a possible way to ease the social and economic burdens resulting from this problem. If
Japan does choose to relieve its woes through immigration, it could face the same problems as
Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when an influx of immigrants to the country led to problems
relating to insufficient German language ability (Menju, 2017). To prevent this situation fromhappening in Japan, measures must be put into place that help new arrivals learn Japanese, and bring
Japanese nationals to an acceptable level of English language ability. As Morita (2015) states, theMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) claims that English
language education is crucial for Japan in order to be part of the growing global community. He
continues, saying that while English is a compulsory subject for six years in Japanese secondary
schools, the reality shows that as of 2015, Japan ranked second-lowest in TOEFL scores among all－ 77 －

Asian countries. If Japan is sincere in its quest to become more internationalized, more attention mustbe paid to both English curriculum and instruction.
At present, students in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Josai International University(JIU) are required to complete three General English (GE) classes for six credits. These classes follow
the same university-wide curriculum offered to students in all faculties. The curriculum focuses onbasic skills and functions found to be important for everyday English communication. These skills andfunctions are important for basic English competence, but they do little to facilitate the language needsof students studying pharmaceutical science. The rationale for creating a specialized program
stemmed from the realization that students in the faculty were not being exposed to the kind of
English that was needed in their profession. Therefore, in conjunction with the Center for Language
Education at JIU, a single, two-credit elective course was developed and offered in the fall of 2016.
Students attended three 90-minute classes every Saturday for 10 weeks. Instruction duties were split
between two teachers, each teaching 15 classes. Content dealt with symptoms and diseases, over-thecounter and prescription medications, disease prevention, and homeopathic alternatives. Assessment
was a combination of written tests and oral presentations based on the content. Of the 35 students who
registered, all but three had dropped out by the end of the course.
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the ESP (English for Special Purposes)
program for students in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at JIU, and answer the following
questions:
How well does the current ESP program reflect the existing Second Language Acquisition(SLA) literature regarding curriculum and vocabulary acquisition?
What can be done to improve the program in the future?

Literature Review
Curriculum development
Curriculum development is an interconnected set of processes that involve the design, revision,
implementation, and evaluation of educational programs. Curriculum determines what knowledge,
skills, and values will be taught to the learners. Second and foreign language learning curriculum
development is a practical and organized activity. The goal is to enhance the quality of both teaching
and learning through methodical planning, development, and review of all aspects of a language
program (Richards, 2001). Nation and Macalister (2010) add that within these processes, a number offactors need to be taken into consideration. These include, but are not limited to, what the learners do－ 78 －

and do not know, available resources (e.g. time, space, materials, etc.), the teachers’ skills, and basic
principles of teaching and learning. These factors will influence the decision-making process when
designing the curriculum.
In Table 1, Brown (1995) describes a system of curriculum design whereby designers are able tocreate a language curriculum based on five key elements.
Table 1 Elements of Language Curriculum
Element

Description

Needs analysis

Gathering information that will act as the foundation of thecurriculum. Specifically, what language forms will be mostbeneficial for learners.

Goals and objectives

Stating the overarching goals (e.g. writing a term paper)and the specific content or skills objectives that will help toachieve the goals (e.g. finding academic journals in thelibrary). These are based on findings from the needs
analysis.

Testing
Materials

Developing tests based on the stated goals and objectives.
Adopting, adapting, or developing materials, taking theabove elements into consideration.

Teaching

Deciding how to present the material and what techniquesand exercises to employ.

(Adapted from Brown, 1995)
If a language program is to be successful, there should be a needs analysis. There is an abundanceof resources from which the designers can cull information. Activities such as distributing
questionnaires, interviewing subjects or those knowledgeable in the field, testing, observing andanalyzing, and reviewing pertinent literature are some of the more common methods by which student
needs can be determined (Brown, 1995; Nation & Macalister, 2010; Richards & Schmidt, 2002).
Such investigation can help shed light both on what students need and what they want. Once student
needs have been established, each step should advance the decisions made in the one prior to it. Goals
and objectives should lead to what students need, tests should measure the students’ ability to achieve－ 79 －

objectives, materials should promote the objectives, and finally, teachers must figure out a way topresent the materials in a fashion that will help the students on tests.
One major decision that can be affected by the needs analysis is what approach to take. An
approach decides what and how students will learn. There are many approaches to take toward
teaching (e.g. audiolingual, direct, communicative, etc.). What approach to follow depends on what
theories and preconceptions the teacher has going in. Approaches that are based on behavioral
psychology like the direct and audiolingual approaches, depend on a seemingly unending processionof various drills, which can be a daunting task for teachers to implement (Paulston, 1970). Others,
such as the communicative approach, adhere to a more sociolinguistic school of thought, but remain,
nonetheless just as challenging to follow (Karavas-Doukas, 1996).
Throughout the design process, there should be ongoing evaluation of the five elements and how
they interact with one another. Information should be gathered continuously and analyzed to help
understand what, if any, changes need to be made. The evaluation process can be done by thedesigners of the curriculum, an unbiased third party, the individual teachers, or a combination of thethree. In the end, for evaluations to be effective, there must be an open attitude toward new ideas andchange (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005).
Vocabulary acquisition
Vocabulary acquisition is important for language learners, but it’s only one sub-goal among other,often more imperative goals. This is not to say that the importance of vocabulary study should be
minimized, but rather it should fit naturally within a larger curricular framework (Nation, 2013).
Based on his research, Nation (2007) promotes four major strands in which vocabulary should betaught in a language course (Table 2).

－ 80 －

Table 2 The Four Strands of a Language Course
StrandDescription

1. Comprehensible andReading and listening activities focus on meaning, andmeaningful input

contain a low number (<3%) of unknown vocabulary.

2. Meaning focused output

Learners have opportunities to produce the language
through speaking or writing activities where focus is on theinformation being conveyed.

3. Language-focused instruction

Vocabulary is taken from context and directly taught,
studied, and learned.

4. Fluency development

Learners work with known vocabulary to increase reception
and production.

(Adapted from Nation, 2007)
Of these strands, language-focused instruction has been the most debated. Krashen and Terrel(1995) feel that decontextualizing language forms takes the spotlight away from meaning, which, theauthors state, is tantamount to successful language acquisition. Some put a higher level of importanceon instruction, and believe that learners cannot become highly proficient unless language is, to somedegree, directly taught both in and out of context (Ellis, 2001; Bourke, 2008). Others feel thatoccasional focus on language (through correction, negative feedback, recasts, etc.) can be beneficial
for learners, as long as it doesn’t take too much away from meaning-focused instruction (Long, 1991;
Long & Robinson, 1998).

Program Observations
This paper will present an overview of the ESP elective program designed for students in the
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, rather than the GE program offered to all students at theuniversity. At present, the program consists of a single, 15-week course offered fifth period on
Thursdays and Fridays. No definitive reason was given for changing from Saturdays to weekdays, but
one might assume that Saturday classes did not fit well with students’ schedules. The dense schedulealso forced students to study for four-and-a-half hours each Saturday. Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) notethat course organization can play a role in student demotivation. The intensive nature could have been
more than many of the students could handle, leading to their dropping the course. Nevertheless, the－ 81 －

number of students completing the course increased, with 26 students registering and only nine
students dropping out by the end of the semester. Additionally, the course was taught by a single
teacher who was also responsible for its curriculum, and was not involved in the original course.
Curriculum
Looking at Brown’s elements which were detailed earlier, we can see how well the current program
echoes this theory of curriculum design.
Needs analysis
Due to time constraints, a thorough needs analysis could not be performed. There were discussions
between the teacher in charge and a professor from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, which
resulted in a decision as to what the students needed. They felt students were most in need of
vocabulary development regarding common OTC medicines, diseases, and symptoms. The teacher
then performed an Internet search in conjunction with a literature review, collecting and narrowing
a list of the most commonly used vocabulary items relevant to the stated needs. The ability forpharmacists to interact with customers in a professional manner and accurately disseminate
information was also added to the list of needs, thereby leading to the decision to adopt a
communicative approach, although the teacher would later abandon a strict adherence to this approach.
Goals and objectives
The creation of the course goals and objectives (see Appendix) was a relatively easy process.
The number of goals and objectives were limited, so students would not feel overburdened, andhave a better chance of achieving the goals. Goals directly reflected the stated needs, and objectives
were written using language which established observable performance (students will be able toname…), conditions (25 OTC medicines), and criteria (60% accuracy). Assessment for the criteria
was left to the teacher’s discretion.
Testing
There was a mid-term and final testing period. Each included a speaking test and a writing test.
All tests were criterion-referenced, and developed by the teacher. Students were aware of what
language would be tested, as well as what format each test would take. Speaking tests wereconducted between the teacher and individual students. Students played the role of a pharmacist,and the teacher played a customer. Students followed dialogue patterns and used language that had
been studied in the textbook. Speaking tests encompassed greetings, asking about symptoms,prescribing an OTC medicine, giving directions and warnings, and closing the conversation.
－ 82 －

Written tests consisted of matching, fill-in-the-blank, true-false, and multiple choice exercises.
Items in the tests came directly from the textbook. Students performed well on all tests, with a
100% pass rate.
Materials
The teacher decided to use a textbook suggested by the faculty liaison. There were three main
factors which led to this decision. First, there was insufficient time to properly develop materials,
which meant that existing materials would be needed. Second, using a textbook relieved thedesigner of having to deal with syllabus design. Finally, the teacher’s lack of experience in teaching
the content made it difficult to ensure that proper materials could be created and developed.
The textbook itself was an easy choice. As there are not many ESL/EFL textbooks which deal
with pharmaceutical medicine, the options are limited from the start. Of the textbooks available tochoose from, even fewer were at a level appropriate for the students in this course. The chosen
textbook met nearly all the stated goals and objectives, and presented them in a pre-designed
syllabus which fit easily into the course schedule. One last benefit was that the presentation of
language and activity design in the book made it easy to develop tests and other assessment tools.
Teaching
The teacher’s awareness of how the program fit into the university’s system, and understandingof the students’ levels and expectations permitted focus to remain on instruction. The main concern
was how to best present the material and allow students to practice the language. Activities such asgroup discussions and role plays fostered communication and helped to act as assessment tools forstudent performance.
The decision to follow a communicative approach meant that activities needed to pushmeaningful communication and language use. Because the course dealt with specific content andlanguage dealing with the students’ field of study, students were able to see relevance and importanceof the language being learned. However, as mentioned earlier, the teacher often felt the language
could best be presented through activities influenced by other approaches. This involved incorporatingtransformation and substitution drills (audiolingual approach) into the lessons to promote fluency,
and using English as a lingua franca, where language function takes priority over form.
Vocabulary acquisition
The number of vocabulary items needed to be learned was large. Students felt driven to memorize
vocabulary, mostly out of context, by means of self-made flash cards and lists. Written tests show thatstudents did manage to learn a lot of new vocabulary. However, it became a problem when students－ 83 －

needed to use certain items in a communicative situation, but could not.
Since the vocabulary element of the course was implemented using the Nation’s four strands, it will
be evaluated here by those same measures. Much of the vocabulary was associated withpharmaceutical medicine and health sciences. As such, items were often difficult or at the mid-tolower end of the frequency spectrum. Even when activities presented items in a meaningful manner,
there were often several items (>30%) unknown to the students. This was notably apparent when
students were given actual scientific articles to read and summarize.
Students were given multiple chances in each class to practice the language. Exercises were
designed to present the language in a meaningful manner, and the activities in the textbook wereexcellent opportunities for students to use what they had learned. As mentioned above, there weremany times when items were presented in a meaningful way, but their difficulty or low frequency
often hindered output.
Given their difficulty, it was often necessary for the teacher to focus on a particular word. This wasusually done by translation or explanation of the word’s meaning in simplified English. If students
were involved in a communicative activity and used a linguistic form incorrectly, the teacher would
use correction or negative feedback to direct attention to the error. This was preferable to a detailed
explanation because it minimized disruption, and students could immediately return to focusing on
meaning. Students seemed to prefer direct teaching of an item, as it proved to be less cognitively
demanding, and it followed the style of teaching they had received in junior high and high school.
That is not to say students didn’t see the value of meaning-focused instruction, but they often founddirect teaching to more efficient.
Communicative activities were recycled frequently in order to give students the chance to practiceusing the language repeatedly. The teacher developed different activities using the same linguistic
forms so that students could practice the same language without feeling as though they were doing
something which they had done before. Over time, students were observed to not only use one form of
the word in a fluent and meaningful manner, but in other forms as well (e.g. correctly using “scratch”
as both a verb and noun).

Program Evaluation and Future Considerations
The only formal evaluation of the course was the university-distributed survey given to all students
in all classes at the end of the semester. Results were favorable, but the survey items did not address
any of the distinct aspects of the course, so their validity is compromised. The teacher did, however,make an informal evaluation based on observations of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of theoverall program (Table 3).
－ 84 －

Table 3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the ESP Pharmacy Program
Strengths

Weaknesses

Clear goals and objectives

Insufficient needs analysis

Materials

Vocabulary item difficulty

Testing of objectives

Testing difficulty

Opportunities for output

Meaningful output from students

Schedule of activities

Insufficient evaluation

Student achievement

Need for more classes

Even though the needs analysis was not as thorough as it could have been, it provided enoughinformation from which to create straightforward and realistic goals and objectives. Objectives werestated using language which made for easy materials development and testing.
The materials were perhaps the strongest component of the program, as both the textbook and theteacher-developed materials were meaning focused, and presented in a way which allowed for fluency
development. They incorporated the needed vocabulary, and did so in an authentic and natural manner.
At times, vocabulary difficulty hindered meaningful student output, but such issues were quickly
resolved, and the instances for student output were plentiful, so occasional hiccups in language usage
did not result in too much lost focus on meaning. Activities were scheduled so that students received
the maximum amount of time to practice the language in different forms and situations. This was
especially important, given the difficulty of much of the vocabulary.
Tests items matched the objectives well . All students demonstrated acceptable levels of achievementin their test performances, which is good, but may be an indication that the testing instruments were
too easy.
An evaluation instrument was utilized, in the form of the general university survey, but the results
do not offer enough information that would have direct benefit. The teacher evaluated each curricularcomponent during the design process and made efforts to continue evaluation as the course progressed,
yet there are still issues that need to be addressed.
What seems to be missing most in this program are additional courses. The strength of a program istruly in the sum of its parts. One class cannot possibly encompass all the linguistic needs of students.
Since this is an ESP program, different classes should concentrate on specific aspects of language
related to their major. As the program matures, additional courses will be needed. One example would
be to develop a class where students read and discuss scientific articles in English. Another class－ 85 －

would teach students how to write them. In any case, more classes should be created which will give
students a wide range of linguistic content, while offering a narrow focus.
A proper needs analysis should also be completed. This would include performing interviews withfaculty professors, pharmacists, and other experts in the field. Testing students would offer a lot of
information as to what their weaknesses were, and to what degree. Students should also be asked what
they feel they need to learn, and how they think they can best learn it. As always, a continuous reviewof the literature will provide current understanding of what is needed, in addition to the theories uponwhich EFL is based.
Teaching English communicatively is good, but it should not be done at the expense of otheractivities which may present the language as an independent form. Chaining a curriculum to one
approach may actually do more harm than good because it does not allow for opportunities to look at
language in a different light. A more eclectic approach should be followed, taking those features
which work best within the framework of the curriculum and using them to their fullest.
For many students, engaging in meaningful output is extremely difficult. Students need to be given
as many opportunities as possible to use the language and become comfortable doing so. Difficulties
in output can be traced to many culprits. Affective variables, learning disabilities, difficult linguistic
forms, and the surrounding environment are only some of the reasons why students are not able toproduce. Careful observation will help to determine possible causes. There are also questionnaires
which can identify issues such as learning anxiety or other disorders. Diagnostic testing can also showwhat linguistic items are difficult for the students. As a result, the teacher can provide extra attention
to their instruction.
The purpose of a test is to assess whether or not students are achieving the objectives. As student
needs change, so will the objectives, which means that tests will need to be revised. Tests should also
challenge students and push them to the best of their abilities. If all students are performing above theminimum acceptable standard, the likelihood of test items being too easy is high, and an evaluation of
the test instrument should be performed.
A system of evaluation needs to be put into place. Personal observations by the teacher can help,
but if the problems are unobservable, then they will continue to reduce the quality of the curriculum.
Designers need to look at each piece of the curriculum and see how it functions both on its own, andas a part of the whole program of study. Instruments of evaluation which target the unique qualities ofthe program must be created and properly implemented.
In conclusion, although the ESP program for students in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences isstill young and incomplete, there is an established curricular framework from which to grow. With
additional courses and needed modifications, the program can develop and offer an English
curriculum that will give students the skills and ability to perform effectively in their field.
－ 86 －

References
Bourke, J. M. (2008). A rough guide to language awareness. English teaching forum, 46(1), 12-21.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.) Form-focused instruction and second
language learning (pp. 1-46). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Japanese pharmacies and drugmakers taking linguistic steps to better serve foreign clients (2017, Oct 26), Japan
Times. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/ 2017/10/26/national/japanese-pharmacies-drugmakerstaking-linguistic-steps better-serve-foreign-clients/#.W56gjugzZPY
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT
Journal, 50(3), 187-198.
Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1995). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York:
Phoenix.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R.
Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (pp. 39-52).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15–41). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Maennig, W. (2017). Major sports events: Economic impact. Retrieved fromhttps://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/ 10419/175038/1/HCED-058.pdf
Menju, T. (2017). Accepting immigrants is the ultimate key to reviving Japan. AJISS- Commentary, 248.
Retrieved from: www2.jiia.or.jp/en_commentary/201710/11 1.html
Morita, L. (2015). Why Japan isn’t more attractive to highly skilled migrants. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-12.
Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2-13.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
Paulston, C. B. (1970). Structural pattern drills: A classification. Foreign language annals, 4(2), 187-193.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics and language teaching. Harlow,
UK: Longman.
Sakai, H. and Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System 37(1), 57–69.
Stupans, I., March, G. J., & Elliot, E. E. (2009). Pharmacy students’ English language skill development: Are we－ 87 －

heading in the right direction? Pharmacy Education,9(1), 6-10.
Van Weijen, D. (2012). The Language of (Future) Scientific Communication. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/the-language-of future-scientific-communication/

Appendix
Goals and Objectives for Pharmacy ESP Course
Goals
Students will be familiar with common OTC

Objectives


medicines

Students will be able to name or write the 10 mostcommon OTC medicines from memory with 80%
accuracy.

Students will be able to describe the purposes of
the 10 most common OTC medicines with 80%
accuracy.

Students will be able to describe the effects of the
10 most common OTC medicines with 70%
accuracy.

Students will be able to explain the directions for
any OTC medicine prescribed for the 10 diseases
found in the textbook with 60% accuracy.

Students will be able to describe warnings andside effects of the 10 most common OTC
medicines with 60% accuracy.

Students will be familiar with common diseasesStudents will be able to name or write the 10
diseases presented in the textbook with 100%
accuracy.

Students will be able to correctly pronounce the
10 diseases presented in the textbook with 100%
accuracy.

Students will be able to differentiate between
diseases with common symptoms with 60%
accuracy

Students will be familiar with symptoms ofdiseasesStudents will be able to identify and describe thesymptoms of the 10 diseases presented in the
textbook with 70% accuracy.

Students will be able to correctly pronounce 20
symptoms presented in the textbook with 100%
accuracy.

－ 88 －

Students will be able to effectively communicatewith customers in a pharmacy setting

Students will be able to use functional phrases
from the book in a communicative manner with
80% accuracy.

Students will be able to comprehend what thecustomer is saying with 80% accuracy.

Based on described symptoms, students will beable to prescribe the correct OTC medicine with
60% accuracy.

－ 89 －