Since we founded Lydbury English Centre in October 1985 we have worked with over 6,000 adult language learners. As you may imagine, this number includes a wide variety of different personalities, from different cultures, and from different professional backgrounds.

Before we start a training course for anybody it is essential for us to analyse:

• their personal learning style
• their individual language needs
• the specific context/s for which they wish to develop their professional and social 
  communication skills

One thing ALL our participants have in common is that they are EXTREMELY BUSY and have VERY LITTLE TIME.

MOST of our participants need a BOOST IN CONFIDENCE often because they have suddenly found themselves in a NEW SITUATION; this could be that:

• they have been moved to a new job in the same company
• they are looking for a new job in a new company and need to prepare for interviews
• they have an important presentation to give
• they have to take part in an important negotiation

Here are some examples of people we have worked with, and who have achieved absolute success following a course at Lydbury.

ENRIQUE

Soon after we founded LEC we provided a course for a Spanish executive working for an international tyre company. He needed to attend a conference in Greenville, South Carolina, and he had absolutely NO ENGLISH AT ALL! Fortunately, he didn’t have to participate actively in the conference, but he needed to be able to follow the presentations. Obviously, he also needed to be able to socialise in English with other delegates. He was here for three weeks.

The first thing we had to do was reassure him and help him to relax. He was so anxious that he was finding it difficult to concentrate and learn. The main skill he needed was GIST LISTENING: the ability to get the general meaning of what people are saying.

LISTENING for GIST means that you have to be able to recognise KEY WORDS. In Enrique’s case we helped him to realise that he already knew many of the key words relating to his company products and processes. However, he didn’t always recognise them because of the peculiarities of English pronunciation. Key features include CONCATENATION – the way in which English speakers run words into each other so that it is hard to distinguish the endings and beginnings of individual words. Fortunately, thanks to the English stress system, key words are always emphasised. Enrique needed to learn how to ignore the words that are unstressed and concentrate on the stressed syllables – rather like skimming pebbles over waves. We also helped him to recognise common contractions, which are the other side of the coin.

One advantage for Enrique is that English contains a lot of Latin vocabulary. Many words (known as cognates) are very similar to Spanish, if you can recognise the pattern shift. For example, in English words ending in ion consistently have the stress in a different place from Spanish: information / informacion,  regulation / regulacion. We gave Enrique intensive practice in transforming Spanish and English cognates, and in gist listening – demonstrating that even if the vowel quality changed depending on the individual accent of a speaker, KEY WORD LISTENING would still work.  In this way he rapidly developed his confidence.

Secondly, we taught him some key social English phrases – how to greet people or offer to buy them a drink, for example. Crucially, we also showed him how to explain WITH CONFIDENCE that his English was limited, and to request that his interlocutors speak more slowly or repeat what they had said.

Enrique coped admirably at the conference and returned to us for a further two weeks. This time he had actually been offered a job in Greenville. This required a different approach. We had to show him how to develop his English while actually using it as his work language.

For his second course we therefore showed him the SYSTEM of ENGLISH TENSES (which is actually quite similar to Spanish – except much, much simpler!) Using the GLOBAL APPROACH we also showed him the system of prepositions, phrasal verbs, linking words and word order. Learning vocabulary is a long term process as our semantic memory is less efficient than our procedural memory. Obviously in two weeks there was a limit to how many new words Enrique could learn – but we were able to draw his attention to word building patterns. Most importantly, we were able to show him how to access English for himself and how to get his native speaker colleagues to help him further. Enrique worked successfully in Grenville for two years. He speaks fluent English (although his colleagues tell us he has a very ‘individual’ accent!)

KIM

Kim was a Korean air force officer training at Cranwell Royal Airforce College. He was referred to us by the commanding officer because he was in danger of failing the course. He was well liked, hard-working and intelligent. His trainers couldn’t work out what the problem was, although they realised it must in some way be language related.

Kim was with us for three weeks, including the Christmas period. (We do not actually run courses over Christmas, but we accepted Kim on the understanding that he would be treated as part of the family over the actual holiday).

Kim’s knowledge of English was excellent. He knew his grammar inside out, and his pronunciation was not bad, although he didn’t understand the communicative significance of appropriate intonation. What rapidly became clear was that his difficulty was in the area of cross cultural communication. Interestingly, during his first week here we also had an Omani army cadet from Sandhurst Military Academy. Kim seemed to be very uncomfortable with Ali, although Ali was trying so hard to be friendly. One of Ali’s expressions of friendliness was to slap Kim on the back saying ‘y’aki’ (my transliteration of the Arabic, meaning ‘my friend’). In Korean culture, intimate tactile contact of that sort is not acceptable. This provided a perfect opportunity to explore cultural differences.

We carried out a simple group activity with a German and French participant where we asked the four of them to move round the room until they felt that they were standing at a comfortable distance from each other. After two minutes they were still moving, because what one person found a comfortable distance was not the same for the others. For Ali it was a dramatic discovery that Kim found his naturally effusive behaviour intrusive. Similarly, Kim was amazed to realise that Ali found his ‘distance’ aloof and unfriendly. It is difficult to reach a consensus of what is the perfect physical distance to keep between individuals when this is such a culture-dependent concept – but the relationship between the two improved immediately once they understood the importance of the INTENTION behind each other’s behaviour, rather than the manifestation of the behaviour itself.

Another communicative difficulty for Kim was the difference in hierarchical relationships within Western - and particularly in his case - British culture, and Korean culture. For him it was absolutely unthinkable to question a senior officer, or admit that he had not understood what a trainer was explaining. This would, to him, have appeared to be a criticism. Also, he was used to strict turn-taking; only one person should speak at a time. Both at LEC and at Cranwell, he constantly experienced colleagues interrupting him, or even speaking across him. Many of our Japanese participants have experienced the same confusion.

Our solution was to train him be able to interrupt (as appropriate), and to ask for repetition or clarification. At first he found this emotionally challenging. Communication in a foreign language often requires shifts in deeply rooted behaviour. Each time Kim tried to do as we asked, his face would redden: he clearly felt very uncomfortable. However, after a considerable amount of reinforcement, we noticed that he was feeling less and less embarrassed – until he reached the point that while he would still be almost physically incapable of interrupting somebody in Korean, it was no longer a problem in English.

Since Kim was a Christian, and it being Christmas, he wanted to attend the service of carols and readings in our village church. This gave us an idea: why not invite Kim to do one of the readings! Kim was not keen on the idea, but it provided a good opportunity to coach him in effective speaking in English. We worked intensively on one of the readings, using it to train him in appropriate rhythm and intonation, and showing him how emphasise and pause in the appropriate places. Sometimes intensive reading can be more valuable than extensive reading, because once a passage has been internalised, the lessons from it can easily be transferred to other contexts. In the end, Kim agreed to read in church, although it was a daunting prospect addressing a congregation of over 100 strangers. He was extremely nervous, but performed perfectly. Afterwards as we all enjoyed traditional mince pies and glasses of mulled wine, lots of people came up to him to congratulate him, and several of them commented that they wished that local native speakers would read as clearly! Again, Kim found these compliments emotionally quite difficult to accept, but he was clearly encouraged by them, and he became noticeably more confident.

On Christmas day itself we had lunch with my parents. This was another learning curve for Kim. He was quite shocked at the familiar way in which the grandchildren spoke to their grandparents. His expectation was that only the head of the household should speak at table. He also didn’t know how to cope with the hospitality. My father kept offering more food and drink, which Kim kept accepting, until we realised that he was actually feeling uncomfortably full. Kim had assumed that it would be impolite to refuse. We explained to him that it was perfectly alright to say ‘no, thank you’. Again, Kim was exceedingly embarrassed when my father turned his head away to blow his nose into his handkerchief. This would not have been acceptable behaviour in Korea.

Cross cultural understanding involves a process of both sensitisation and de-sensitisation; by that I mean that we need to learn how not to offend others, as well as how not to feel offended by them.

It occurred to us that Kim’s colleagues at RAF Cranwell might not know much about Korean culture. Since Kim was required to give a presentation when he returned to college, we suggested he choose Korean culture as his topic. ‘I don’t know what Korean culture is,’ he said. At first we were puzzled, but then we realised that in fact, we define any culture in relation to its difference or similarity to other cultures, particularly our own. So – we started drawing up general comparisons between British and Korean culture, and helping him to craft them into a presentation which he then practised with us several times.

The conclusion to this case study was most satisfying. At the end of his course at Cranwell we received a letter from his commanding officer informing us that he had not only passed the course, but had received an award for coming top of it: and that was in competition with native speakers of English!

ANDRÉ and SHOJI

André was a French engineer, Shoji, a Japanese banker. The two of them seemed to be having some difficulty communicating, though both of them had reasonably good English. It would have been natural to assume that this again was a cultural issue. We filmed a discussion between them. When they watched the recording they both immediately realised what the problem was. André was an auditory communicator; he didn’t actually look at Shoji very much. Shoji, on the other hand, was a very kinaesthetic and visual communicator. André was waiting to HEAR the communication, whereas Shoji was using facial expressions, and wanting to SEE André’s communication. This enabled us to explore the concept of what is an acceptable amount of eye contact. It is good to remember that communication is not just a question of shared cultural understanding. It also involves personal communication styles – even though these can, of course, be influenced by culture. Also, communication is not just a question of words! Learning how to communicate in another language also includes understanding BODY LANGUAGE.

JESSICA

Jessica was a technical trainer in a German automotive company. She had just written a maintenance manual for a brand new model of car, and was required to run a three day training workshop for maintenance engineers. First of all she needed to check through all her PowerPoint slides to check that the English was correct. Next she wanted to practise delivering the presentation itself. However, we realised that this was not enough. She felt that three days was not enough time to deliver her training, so she needed to learn appropriate accelerated techniques. We therefore delivered her own English language training using some of the techniques that she would need to use in her own training – a sort of loop-input. We also gave her ideas, and language, for managing groups, as well as showing her how to help her participants embed their own learning. In the process we learnt some fascinating information about the kinds of software systems used in modern cars, and the amazing functions that are now available.

ALBERT

Albert is a neurologist specialising in geriatric medicine. He had applied for a research grant to enable him to develop better systems for palliative care for patients with dementia. In order to do this he had to give an in-depth presentation of his current findings, the research he wished to carry out, and his motives for doing so. Since Albert had been to us before, and already had a very high level of English, we were able to use the content of his presentation to refine any other areas of English that he had not yet mastered. He delivered his presentation several times – to trainers in-house and to guests, who though not medically trained, had a particular interest in dementia. Finally, through the kind services of our own family doctor he gave a presentation to staff specialising in the care of patients with dementia in our own local community hospital. This was a win-win situation. For Albert it was a real experience, and for his audience the information was professionally valuable. He had to deal with REAL professional questions.

Albert gave his presentation and despite strong competition from other candidates, was successfully awarded his research grant.

MEHMET

Mehmet is one of Turkey’s most celebrated football heroes. He came to Lydbury to improve his English because he wanted to move into coaching and training at an international level. How do you teach English for football coaching? We put our heads together. One of our trainers happened to be very keen on football, but that wasn’t enough. So, we contacted the local secondary school and asked if they would like to have the services of a professional football coach. They were delighted. So, several times a week, Mehmet would coach the football teams, observed by a language trainer who would record everything that happened, including the language that the team members used, the questions they asked, and the things that Mehmet didn’t understand. These were then used as a basis for his language training. In this way Mehmet developed his competence in English for football coaching while actually DOING it. His contribution was hugely appreciated by the school, and he became very practised at signing his name!

HEINZ

Heinz came to us having just become the CEO of a small private engineering company. The company was in serious trouble, and he had been head-hunted as a trouble shooter. His predecessor had signed a disastrous contract with a company in the US and Heinz had to renegotiate it – at the end of the week.

The problem was that the contract was very favourable to the US company, so it was difficult to find some kind of motivation for them to agree to a change. Heinz spoke reasonable English, but he had never used it in business at this kind of level. His objectives were not only to learn how to negotiate in English, but to work out his negotiation strategy. Additionally, he had never negotiated with Americans, so he wasn’t sure what their style would be and how to build rapport with them. Working with our team, he did manage to find a strategy and planned how he was going to manage the relationship with the US company. (This involved looking objectively at German styles of communication and working out what the differences might be). With a trainer he brainstormed all the objections that might be raised. They then ran the negotiation as a simulation with the trainer raising all the objections possible, and Heinz delivering all the responses he had so carefully thought out. They simulation was recorded each time so that he could evaluate his own performance and decide where he wanted to make changes.

He went to the States and was pleasantly surprised to discover that the negotiation, though intensive, was not as challenging as the simulations had been. He let us know immediately that it had been a success and he had achieved everything he hoped from it – including establishing a very positive relationship for future collaboration. He said that the cost of the course at Lydbury was nothing compared with the money that he had managed to save his company. Perhaps we should have negotiated a percentage of the saving!

CARLOS

Carlos (not his real name) had been to us twice before. He was a senior manager in a large communications company and had started with us at an intermediate level of English which enabled him to communicate generally, but not with any sophistication. Also, his accent made it sometimes difficult to understand him. By the time of his third visit, the global recession had hit, his company had had to downsize, and he had been made redundant. He was tired and a bit depressed.

He chose to follow a 9 day platinum course format. He wanted to review and extend his overall range of language and continue improving his pronunciation and developing his listening comprehension. In addition to this he wanted to focus on refining his CV, writing a covering letter tailored to a specific job application, and preparing to answer questions in English at interview. While he was with us he applied for two jobs that we saw advertised in the British National Press, and a job back in Spain. (He also got loads of sleep and ate really well).

He notified us on his return home that he had been offered all three posts! The salary for the job he accepted was higher than that for his previous job. English played a large role in his success, in addition to the fact that he was obviously a highly competent professional. In a total of 30 days (including weekends), and spanning three courses, he had progressed from level B1 (independent user) on the CEF (Common European Framework for Langages) scale to C1 (proficient user). His pronunciation and comprehension had substantially improved as well.

MIKLOS

Miklos (also not the real name) is a successful young Czech entrepreneur. He has been to us a total of six times – for one week each time. He is a big picture thinker, with a very individual learning style. He was adamant that he did not want to study grammar. His communication and comprehension developed satisfactorily during his first four courses, but his speech was still inaccurate. On the fifth course we finally persuaded him that the only way forward was to understand the SYSTEMS of English. Without understanding these you cannot manipulate the language, or use it innovatively. He capitulated – and his girlfriend, whose English is excellent, commented on how his improvement in English had accelerated that week. We thought he had probably reached a level at which he was satisfied – but three weeks later he was back again. He was considering selling one of his companies to an international operator, and had engaged professional consultants. He wanted time to think about his strategy as well as how to manage negotiations in English.

Miklos brainstormed all the relevant factors with one of our trainers. (It must be emphasized that any information communicated to us in such a situation remains entirely confidential). Between them, Miklos and the trainer devised a simulation, during which the trainer raised some issues that had not been considered before. Miklos realised these were questions he needed to put to the potential buyers. He wished his consultants had thought of them. (We wished he were paying us as much as his consultants!).

GEORG

Georg works for a multinational company present in many sectors as well as many countries. Georg has to communicate with workers in India, and he was finding it particularly to manage the relationship with his main contact. With the information he gave us we were able to devise a simulation between him and the contact (played by the trainer). The trainer recorded it and played it back. He then changed roles so that he played Georg, and Georg played the role of the Indian contact. Georg (not the real name) was shocked when he found himself at the other end of his own communication style. ‘I sound rather arrogant ’he said. This created his awareness of the need to be more diplomatic in English. He considered this to the most valuable outcome of the week’s course.

GIUSEPPE

During his needs analysis, Giuseppe told us that his main reason for learning English was to chair meetings. He just wanted to learn the language of meetings as he felt he had developed sufficient skill in this area. When we ran a meetings simulation, with him as chairman, we asked the other participants to give their feedback on his management. (As trainers we give the language feedback, but we often call on the professional expertise of other participants to give feedback on the management skills). They had all found that he was too autocratic, and felt that he had not consulted them enough or involved them in the discussion. He was surprised, and this led to a further discussion on expectations when chairing meetings in an international context. Communication style can be a reflection not only of national culture, but of company culture as well as individual personality. Again, Giuseppe found this practical peer-feedback one of the most valuable aspects of his course.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we hope that the examples given here will give some idea of the kind of possibilities that exist, and the kind of outcomes that can be achieved on a course at Lydbury English Centre. English is English, but with a creative approach, and by seeking to understand the needs and background of our participants, we can adapt our training and provide added value. Over the years, we have experienced some really touching breakthroughs. To illustrate, let me finish with a final, memorable anecdote.

A few years ago, before we incorporated the analysis of learning styles into all our courses, we were working with a 36 year old French engineer who seemed to be particularly resistant and uncooperative. I asked him directly if there was a problem. ‘The problem’, he said ‘is that I just hate teachers. I’m sorry; I am not personally criticising you’.

I asked him about his previous experience of learning English. At school he had hated learning not only English, but every other subject as well, and he had been held back two years for not reaching a high enough standard in the end of year exams. He was clearly bright and intelligent, but deeply frustrated at his lack of promotion in his company.

With a little probing I soon discovered that he was dyslexic. He had never heard of such a thing. I explained to him about learning styles, and the advantages, as well as the disadvantages, of being dyslexic. He became very emotional and said; ‘you are saying that you think I am not stupid!’ I was shocked at this, and was extremely worried when he left the training room and didn’t appear for the rest of the day. I thought I had made a terrible mistake in raising the subject. However, he returned at dinner time smiling. He had spent most of the day walking and thinking. After that, he made tremendous progress and said that being here had changed his life.

This was a very humbling experience for all of us, but it does demonstrate how a very little thing can make a very big difference. Also, the psychological aspect of learning is perhaps even more important than the pedagogy.  A lot of people are blocked from achieving their potential just because they believe they can’t. At Lydbury changing this perception is our biggest challenge and our biggest reward.