American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
49
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
49-51
10.37547/ajsshr/Volume05Issue06-12
24
Re-Evaluating Business English Instruction for
Undergraduate Economics Students: A Curriculum
Proposal for The Tashkent Institute of Management and
Economics
Nayimova Nargiza Elmurot qizi
Senior Lecturer at the Tashkent Institute of Management and Economics, Uzbekistan
Received:
14 April 2025;
Accepted:
10 May 2025;
Published:
12 June 2025
Abstract:
This paper critically examines the current English language syllabus implemented for first-year students
majoring in finance, economics, and taxation at the Tashkent Institute of Management and Economics (TIME).
While the course aims to develop both general and professional English skills, it suffers from a lack of needs-based
curriculum development and attempts to compress both general and business English instruction into a single
academic year. Drawing upon classroom experiences and relevant pedagogical research, this paper argues for a
redesigned two-year curriculum: one year dedicated to general English language acquisition, followed by a second
year focusing on business and professional English relevant to the students' academic disciplines. The proposal is
grounded in language acquisition theory, content-based instruction, and curriculum alignment with the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
Keywords:
Professional English skills, English instruction, Economics Students.
Introduction:
In the context of a globalized economy,
proficiency in English is essential for professionals in
finance and economics. For university students in
Uzbekistan, particularly those at the Tashkent Institute
of Management and Economics (TIME), English offers
access to international knowledge, research, and global
job markets. As such, English is included in the core
curriculum for freshmen majoring in finance,
economics, and taxation. However, the current
syllabus, while ambitious, fails to scaffold students’
language development in a way that aligns with their
disciplinary needs and linguistic proficiency levels.
Research on English language curriculum design (e.g.,
Graves, 2000; Nunan, 2004) emphasizes the
importance of aligning course content with learners'
needs and professional requirements. While the
current program addresses general and business
English skills, it lacks a needs-based approach and fails
to provide a structured pathway for students to
develop the language proficiency required in
professional contexts. This paper proposes an
alternative approach based on language acquisition
theories and curriculum design principles.
Problem Statement
The current syllabus titled "Xorijiy Til (Ingliz Tili)" is
designed to introduce students to both general and
business English over the course of two semesters.
However, it suffers from several shortcomings that
hinder its effectiveness:
1.
Absence of Needs Analysis: No evidence
suggests that the syllabus was informed by diagnostic
tests, placement assessments, or interviews with
students and faculty to determine their specific
language needs (Richards, 2001). As a result, the
curriculum does not address the actual language
demands of finance, economics, or taxation students.
2.
Overgeneralization of Content: While business
topics are included, they are not tailored to the specific
terminologies
and
communication
contexts
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
50
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
encountered in fields like finance or taxation. For
example, topics such as “Travel,” “Hotel reservation,”
and “Wild World” dilute the relevance to students'
professional contexts (Belcher, 2006).
3.
Insufficient
Duration
and
Misaligned
Progression: The syllabus attempts to develop both
general
linguistic
competence
and
business
communication skills within a single academic year.
This compressed timeframe results in superficial
coverage and cognitive overload (Long, 2000), which
undermines effective learning.
These issues reflect a misalignment between the
curricular content, the instructional time, and the
linguistic and professional development goals for
students in economic disciplines.
Theoretical Framework
The proposed redesign is informed by several
pedagogical and linguistic frameworks that emphasize
the importance of language acquisition theory, needs
analysis, and sequenced language progression:
•
Cummins’ (1981) BICS and CALP Framework:
Cummins posits that students must first develop Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) before
advancing to Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP). The latter is essential for mastering the
specialized language used in academic and professional
settings. The current syllabus attempts to bypass this
essential progression by introducing both general and
business English simultaneously.
•
Content-Based Instruction (CBI): Brinton,
Snow, and Wesche (1989) argue that integrating
content knowledge with language instruction enhances
motivation and contextual learning. Business English
instruction should thus be based on real-world financial
and economic content, facilitating more relevant and
effective learning.
•
CEFR Language Progression: According to the
Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), language learners
should progress through sequenced stages of language
proficiency, from A2 (basic) to B2 (independent).
Attempting to condense this progression into a single
academic year is unrealistic without establishing an
adequate foundation of general English proficiency.
Proposed Solution: A Two-Year Modular English
Curriculum
Year One: General English Development (A2
–
B1 CEFR)
The first year of the proposed curriculum should focus
on building general English proficiency. This includes
fundamental aspects of grammar, vocabulary
acquisition, reading and listening strategies, and both
oral and written fluency. Textbooks such as Gateway B1
or English File Pre-Intermediate would provide the
necessary structure for scaffolding instruction.
Instructional Emphasis:
•
Mastery of core grammatical structures (e.g.,
tenses, modals, conditionals)
•
Acquisition of general vocabulary, with
emphasis on academic word lists (Coxhead, 2000)
•
Development of everyday communicative
tasks, such as interviews, presentations, and
summarizing texts
•
Introduction to academic study skills in English,
such as note-taking, referencing, and paragraph writing
This phase is designed to establish a solid foundation of
language skills, preparing students for more advanced
study in the second year.
Year Two: Business English and Professional
Communication (B1
–
B2 CEFR)
In the second year, the focus shifts to business and
professional English relevant to finance, economics,
and taxation. This stage involves discipline-specific
language and texts, including business communication
skills such as writing reports, financial analysis, and
engaging in professional discussions.
Key Components:
•
Business correspondence: Emails, memos,
formal letters (Bhatia, 1993)
•
Oral
skills:
Meetings,
negotiations,
presentations
•
Reading financial and economic texts, including
reports and news articles from sources like Bloomberg
•
Writing: Business plans, CVs, reports, and
executive summaries
•
Use of real-life case discussions from
international financial contexts
Appropriate course materials, such as The Business 2.0
(B1
–
B2) and Business Result, Market Leader, would
guide instruction. Both years would be assessed
through performance-based tasks (e.g., presentations,
written
reports),
portfolios,
and
traditional
assessments (tests, quizzes) that reflect both general
and business language skills.
Implementation Considerations
Successful implementation of the proposed curriculum
requires careful consideration of the following factors:
•
Teacher Training: Instructors must be trained
in both Business English methodology and financial
discourse to effectively deliver Year Two content. This
training ensures that teachers can effectively scaffold
students’ learning (Harmer, 2007).
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
51
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
•
Placement Testing: A diagnostic test should be
administered at the start of the program to determine
students' initial proficiency levels and ensure they are
streamed appropriately or provided additional support
if needed.
•
Stakeholder Involvement: Collaboration with
subject matter experts from the finance and taxation
faculties can help ensure that the business English
content aligns with the students' academic and
professional needs.
•
Material
Development:
Using
locally
contextualized business case studies and economic
data in English will enhance the relevance and
engagement of the materials (Flowerdew, 1998).
CONCLUSION
The current English language program at the Tashkent
Institute of Management and Economics, while
ambitious, fails to adequately address the specific
language needs of finance, economics, and taxation
students. The lack of scaffolding, overgeneralized
content, and misaligned progression inhibit students'
ability to develop the necessary communicative and
professional language skills. A sequenced two-year
program
—
beginning with general English and followed
by business English
—
provides a pedagogically sound
alternative that aligns with international language
learning standards and meets the professional
demands of the global economy. The proposed
curriculum aims not only to improve language
proficiency but also to empower students with the
communicative tools required for success in their
academic and future professional careers.
REFERENCES
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in
professional settings. Longman.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989).
Content-based second language instruction. Newbury
House Publishers.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL
Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language
development in promoting educational success for
language minority students. In California State
Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language
minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49).
California State Department of Education.
Flowerdew, J. (1998). The argument for using English
for specific purposes in the teaching of English as a
second or foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4),
497-501.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide
for teachers. Heinle & Heinle.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language
teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language
teaching. In R. Ellis (Ed.), *Task-based
