3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

The English Language & Communication in the International Workplace:

An Examination of Thai Computer Engineering Professionals

KRICH RAJPRASIT
Srinakharinwirot University
Thailand
[email protected]

SAENGCHAN HEMCHUA
Srinakharinwirot University
Thailand

ABSTRACT

Using effective English language is one of the most desired communication skills for successful international
engineering workplace. However, the way in which this language is used in terms of computer engineering has
not been much studied, despite being one of the key aspects of international business. This study aims to explore
the nature of international communicative situations; to identify how Thai engineers self-report their language
proficiency, ability to perform English-related tasks and their opinions regarding language use in an
international workplace. The participants were Thai engineers working in companies located in the Bangkok
metropolitan area. A mixed-methods approach was employed, and the results revealed that English language
proficiency plays a key role in their workplace and in terms of career advancement; their interpersonal
communication mostly took place between colleagues in the same base, or between overseas bases, in terms of
cooperation, teamwork, and meetings; oral communication skills were the most needed; their perceived
language proficiency level was fair, and their perceived reading skills were the best in comparison to their
other skills; and using perfect English was not a priority, yet intelligibility was more important for reaching
their communicative goals. Such findings have led to pedagogical implications such as specifically designing
courses containing realistic knowledge and skills; introducing the concept of BELF to raise awareness among
engineering students regarding comprehensibility of non-native-like English speech; and practicing listening
with both native and non-native accents to be familiar with these accents and more confident communicating in
real-life situations.

Keywords: English language proficiency; communication skills; Business English as a Lingua Franca; Thai
computer engineers

INTRODUCTION

Professional engineers are men and women who use technology as a means to enhance
elements such as cost-effectiveness or market-competitiveness (Samson 1989). In the case of
computer engineers, the nature of their profession is to analyse, design and evaluate computer
systems in terms of both hardware and software. Additionally, computer engineers also work
on the planning, design, development, testing, and even the supervision of manufacturing
computer hardware, as well as the networks that transmit data and multimedia (Berry,
DiPiazza & Sauer 2003). However, like any other profession, computer engineering also
requires interpersonal communication, mostly in the form of oral communication, and
employs English as a lingua franca at the international level (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles and
Kankaanranta 2005, Reimer 2002, Seidlhofer 2011, Spence and Liu 2013).
Due to the aforementioned situation, a global computer engineer is obliged to possess
the ability to communicate across national and cultural boundaries with ease. In this way, the
English language can be seen as a facilitating language, which allows engineers to achieve
their communicative goals. For this reason, English language proficiency is vital for global
computer engineers, from participating in the international professional arena and reaching a
desirable position in terms of a career path, for example, job recruitment, routine work,

109
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

promotion and advancement. Therefore, a qualified engineer does not need only technical
skills, but communication skills as well (Arkoudis et. al. 2014, Cole and Tibby 2013,
Kanoksilapatham 2013, Thanky 2014). In the international workplace, engineers also deal
with various communicative situations in both interpersonal and organisational terms, which
require a specific set of communication skills among both native and non-native English
speakers who are clients, contractors or suppliers, or colleagues, supervisors, and
subordinates. In such a context, interpersonal interaction frequently occurs in oral and written
communication. Specifically, communicative situations for engineers usually cover tasks
such as work-related discussions, informal and social conversation, persuasion and
negotiation (Apelman 2010, Ayokanmbi 2011, Reimer 2002, Spence and Liu 2013).
Moreover, the notion that non-native English language users have to attain the
‘perfect’ level of English that native English speakers are believed to speak, is not a primary
consideration in terms of success in the globalised professional context any more
(Kankaanranta 2010, Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta 2011) Rather, comprehensibility
seems to the key focus among these language users in terms of achieving particular goals,
particularly among non-native English speakers. This also resulted in the concept of Business
English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles and Kankaanranta 2005).
While effective English communication in the workplace is largely based on
individual and organisational factors, it has been noted by academicians and industry
professionals alike that new global engineers suffer from a knowledge-gap in terms of the
outcomes of an engineering education and the demands of engineering in practice. In other
words, a lack of communication in the workplace, as well as a lack of management skills, has
been widely reported. The research on English language proficiency and workplace
communication, conducted in national and international contexts, revealed that engineers, in
particular, non-native English speakers, encountered difficulties in terms of English
workplace communication, sometimes to the extent that their employers were dissatisfied
with the communication skills of new engineering graduates. It has also been noted that the
language proficiency levels and communication skills of engineers were in urgent need of
improvement (Johnson, Lee and McGregor 1996, Khamis and Ho-Abdullah 2015, Raina and
Pande 2012, Rajprasit, Pratoomrat, Wang, Kulsiri and Hemchua 2014, Rajprasit, Pratoomrat
and Wang 2015, Ruff and Carter 2009, Thanky 2014).
As the available research on the topic of the English language and workplace
communication in a Thai computer engineering field is rare, the present study has made an
effort to explore the nature of communicative situations in an international computer
engineering workplace, to identify the levels of self-reported English language proficiency,
and the ability to perform English-related tasks in this field. As previously mentioned, the
factor of globalisation directly affects engineering in terms of both education and the
professional aspect. Thus, educational institutes have to be ready and able to face such a
challenge. Knowledge of the nature of communicative situations, and self-reported levels of
English proficiency levels and abilities could be beneficial for specifically redesigning the
English for Specific Purposes courses for computer engineering undergraduates, and novice
computer engineers in language training courses.

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTERNATIONAL WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION IN THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION

According to Kress (1985), who attempted to define the role of organisation in workplace
communication, social institutions produce specific ways of writing or talking about certain

110
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

areas of social life, which are related to the place, the time, and the nature of the institution,
and produce statements which define what is possible and impossible to say, and how it is to
be talked or written about within each professional context. From the perspective of Bandura
(2008), communication in organisations can be socially learned, taught, and further improved
through organisational training programs. Keyton, Caputo, Ford et. al (2013) maintain that
communication is related to and productive to intentional, interactive, learnable and
observable outcomes.
In addition, interpersonal communication is necessary for any organisation, as it takes
place in a context bound by formal and informal workplace relationships, as well as larger
societal and organisational cultures. Globalisation and the use of technology have also put a
greater emphasis on the interpersonal skills of employees, and their ability to collaborate in
teams. In the international workplace communicative setting, interpersonal interaction
constantly occurs, whether individually, as a result of teamwork, and small-group meetings.
Thus, communication always appears high on the list of the most desirable skills sought by
employers, and it is not surprising that employers rank oral communication skills among the
top three most valuable applied skills. However, employers have rated almost all new
engineering graduates at largely deficient levels (Mohamed et. al. 2014, Raina & Pande 2012,
Rajprasit, Pratoomrat & Wang 2015, Ruff & Carter 2009, Thanky 2014).
Apparently, oral communication (oral presentation, group discussion, negotiation,
socialisation among colleagues, and persuasion) and written communication (i.e. project
reports, emails, meeting minutes, and presentation slides) frequently occur in the context of
the international workplace (Apelman 2010, Ayokanmbi 2011, Reimer 2002, Spence & Liu
2013). However, oral communication skills have been prioritised by employers, across a
variety of disciplines, for over a decade. Even though knowledge and technical know-how are
obviously significant, they must be presented orally, and with an excellent standard of
communication skills. In terms of enhancing such skills, various methods (i.e. presentations;
group projects; peer review; role-play; video feedback; and the use of presentation
software/hardware are employed in the language classrooms and training courses (Keane &
Gibson 1999).
In the study by Keyton et. Al (2013), the ten most common communication behaviors
in U.S. business operations and workplaces were identified, as follows: listening, asking
questions, discussion, sharing information, agreeing, suggesting, getting feedback, seeking
feedback, answering questions, and explaining. Even though such behaviours are not
restricted by level, or whether they are a supervisor or a subordinate, and job type, a general
way to operationalise communicative competency in the workplace would be to focus on
verbal communication behaviours.
Therefore, in order to be a successful engineer, and in particular, a computer engineer,
the following communication abilities have been suggested to improve their English
communication skills:

1. the ability to design communication (e.g. evaluating communication situations and

designing communication appropriately for different contexts and purposes, and
communicating effectively to a variety of audiences
2. the ability to explain something clearly (e.g. presenting information in a way that goes
beyond the specific details of a project to provide the big picture, a higher level of
summary, and explaining the codes, methods, and design decisions by communicating
their intentions
3. the ability to have a productive discussion (e.g. leading a productive group discussion
and dealing constructively with conflict

111
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

4. the ability to receive communication (e.g. listening actively and asking clarifying
questions)
5. the ability to communicate professionally (e.g. giving opinions with a balance of
confidence and humility, and avoiding complaining)
6. the ability to use common forms and tools (e.g. demonstrating a mastery of the kinds
of formal and informal communication most often used in the industry, and using
digital tools that are beneficial in terms of communication and teamwork (Reimer
2002, Ruff & Carter 2009).

As a result, the key factor is the ability of the engineers to speak English or have English
language proficiency in the international communicative setting, in which such a degree of
proficiency can be regarded as the key to individual and institutional success.

THE LEVEL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIECY REQUIRED

FOR INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS

English language proficiency is a key requirement for engineers, ranging from participation
in the professional arena to reaching a desirable position in terms of their career path, and in
particular, international professions. English language proficiency also offers a tremendous
advantage in terms of the employability of graduates who are willing to work overseas, or for
international organisations within their own country (Arkoudis et. al. 2014, Cole & Tibby
2013, Knight & Yorke 2004).
The need for a truly international language has become even more pressing, especially
in light of the NATO agreement on standardised technical language, which can be regarded
as the advent of an already-emerging global communication system (Johnson, Lee &
McGregor 1996). If engineering is to be successful in regaining a position where its
professional expertise can be best employed, it must develop a discursive competence
adequate to deal with the increasingly complex social environment in which it operates
(Johnson, Lee & McGregor 1996). Therefore, several sets of the communication skills
required for engineers have already been examined in the contexts of communication and
documentation, and engineers are increasingly being called on to explain, justify, argue, or
persuade. Thus, the area of research is English language proficiency with the following
attributes: spoken language fluency; written language fluency; regional and national dialects;
technical terminology and professional jargon (Reimer 2002).
Thus, to a large extent, English is used as an operational language allowing
communication and co-operation between people from different places and language groups
to take place as usual (Latha 2014). In order to reach a communicative goal in terms of the
operations aspect of business, some business communication scholars have proposed a
number of innovative concepts, one of which is Business English as a Lingua Franca
(Kankaanranta 2009, Louhiala-Salminen, Charles & Kankaanranta 2005).

BUSINESS ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA

As a result of the present era of globalisation, and increasing interaction amongst

professionals, the English language is a definite requirement for successful professional
communication, and has been shifted from its role as an everyday form of communication to
a professional language (Welch, Welch, & Piekkari 2005). According to Kankaanranta
(2009), this type of language is typically the corporate language of multinational companies,
and used for corporate functions, for example, accounting, communications, finance, and
management. Therefore, the increasing use of the English language in these international;
business situations has resulted in the framing of the concept of Business English as a Lingua

112
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

Franca (BELF). BELF was proposed by the scholars in the area of business communication
over the last decade, and Louhiala-Salminen, Charles and Kankaanranta (2005, pp. 403-404)
have defined BELF as:

English used as a ‘neutral’ and shared communication code. BELF is neutral in the sense
that none of the speakers can claim it as her/his mother tongue; it is shared in the sense
that it is used for conducting business within the global business discourse community,
whose members are BELF users and communicators in their own right – not ‘non-native
speakers’ or ‘learners.’

Even though some scholars (Gerritsen & Nickerson 2009) pointed out that the use of
BELF may lead to communication problems such as a lack of comprehensibility, cultural
differences and stereotyped associations, Seidlhofer (2011) argued that regardless of the
influence of English native speakers, (Business) English as Lingua Franca is characterised as
a tool to reach a communicative goal and for international intelligibility among speakers of
different first languages.
Recent studies on BELF conducted worldwide have highlighted its key role in terms
of successful international communication. In Evans (2013)’s study on the use of English as a
business lingua franca in key service industries in Hong Kong, it was reported that English
can be considered as one element in the linguistic ecology of the contemporary workplace.
He also emphasised the significance of written English communication, even if the nature
and the extent of such use are due to a variety of institutional and individual factors. Spoken
English also plays a vital role in foreign organisations in Hong Kong, as video and telephone
conferencing are frequently used by local professionals, and there is also interplay between
written and spoken codes in both English and Chinese in terms of workplace communication.
More interestingly, the focus in this form of communication is not on the most correct form
of language, and nor are they introduced to the standard business communication textbooks
which focus on the most stylistically appropriate form of language. Asininity (2007)
discovered that engineers who were members of the Paper Engineers Association of Finland
used English in daily workplace communication with a large number of non-native English
speakers. Most of them used spoken English in interactive situations, and spoken English
situations occurred more frequently than written ones. In addition, spoken skills played a
more important role in problematic situations than written skills. However, one of the most
challenging aspects for the non-native English speakers was to understand a variety of
different pronunciations of spoken English.
In order to compare the preferable use of Standard English and BELF, Suryani, Desa,
and Yaacob (2010) conducted several cross-border activities as part of a collaborative project
among Malay students (English as a Second Language user) and Thai students (English as a
Foreign Language user) at the university level. They found that the Malay students used a
variation of Standard English for formal situations, and used BELF for informal situations.
However, the Thai students used BELF for both formal and informal situations. In addition,
the Thai students tended to use BELF for both formal and informal occasions, as a method of
getting the message across or ‘getting the job done’ regardless of their accuracy in spoken
English.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions to be addressed are as follows:

1. How necessary is English language proficiency for Thai computer engineers?

113
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

2. How often do Thai computer engineers engage in interpersonal communication in

English?
3. What kinds of English communicative situations do Thai computer engineers encounter
most frequently?
4. How do Thai computer engineers self-rate their general English language proficiency,
and abilities in terms of performing English-related tasks?
5. What are the opinions of Thai computer engineers regarding English communication in
the workplace?

RESEARCH DESIGN

PARTICIPANTS

This study employed a mix-methods approach with a total of 40 participants. These

participants consisted of Thai operative engineers working for international companies in the
Bangkok metropolitan area, with headquarters located in Norway, the United Kingdom, and
the United States of America. The criteria for selecting these participants was that they were
working in computer engineering at an operative level, their company was medium-sized,
with at least 500 to 1,000 employees, and they had up to 10 years of work experience after
university graduation. Furthermore, four of the participants who worked in Thailand willingly
took part in individual interviews in order to provide more information regarding English
communication in their workplace.
INSTRUMENTS

The instruments were developed from previous studies, and there were two instruments used
to collect data in this study, a questionnaire, and a series of interview questions.
QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire consists of seven parts as shown below.

Part 1 - demographic information
Part 2 - 3 questions on the necessity of English language proficiency in the workplace
Part 3 - 7 questions on the frequency of their interpersonal communication in English
Part 4 -16 questions on the frequency of English communication in the workplace
Part 5 - 24 questions on perceptions of level of English language
Part 6 - 22 questions on their perceptions regarding their abilities to perform English-
related tasks in the workplace
Part 7 - a one-week record of English communication in the workplace.

In parts two to four, the questions were adapted from Spence and Liu’s study (2013)
concerning needs analysis for Engineering English at a Taiwanese semiconductor
manufacturing company. In part five, the questions regarding their self-perceived levels of
English language proficiency were applied from Taillefer’s study (2007) on the assessment
of, and perspectives on the professional language needs of French economics graduates. The
proficiency level descriptors on the Test of English for International Communication
(TOEIC) correspond with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR), a guideline used across Europe to describe the achievement levels of learners of
foreign languages. The six proficiency levels of TOEIC correspond with the six levels of
CEFR, as follows: level 1 (novice) = A1 (beginner), level 2 (elementary) = A2 (elementary),

114
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

level 3 (basic working proficiency) = B1 (intermediate), level 4 (basic working proficiency) =

B2 (upper intermediate), level 5 (advanced working proficiency) = C1 advanced, level 6
(general professional proficiency) = C2 (proficiency).
Thus, Taillefer's set of questions, which rank each language skill from one to six
(reading, listening, writing, and speaking) correspond with TOEIC level descriptors. In part
six, the questions about their ability to perform tasks were adapted from Hart-Rawung and
Li’s study (2008) on the English communication skills of Thai automotive engineers.
Regarding the scoring of each part, in parts two to six, each item or question was
scored on a four-point scale with numerical values to show the level of necessity of English
language proficiency (1 - low, 2 - quite low, 3 - quite high, 4 - high) and in part two, to
indicate the frequency of interpersonal communication, and dealing with communicative
situations in English (1 - never, 2 - sometimes, 3 - often, 4 - always) in parts three and four,
and to show their perceived language proficiency level, and their ability to perform English-
related tasks (1 - poor, 2 - fair, 3 - well, 4 - excellent) in parts five and six. The last part is the
one-week record of English workplace communication. In this part, the respondents were
asked to record the English communicative situations that occurred during a single working
week.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

The interview questions asked the engineers to express their opinions toward significance of
engineering knowledge and English language proficiency, factors affecting engineering
career advancement (i.e. engineering knowledge and English language proficiency), nature of
English workplace communication, interpersonal communication in English and challenges
encountered in communicative situations. These queries were set in an open-ended format,
and based on the findings of the quantitative data and previous studies.
Both instruments were written in the English language, as the participants used it as a
medium of communication in the workplace. In order to confirm the validity of the content,
both instruments were sent to experts for revision. A pilot study was conducted with ten
electronic engineers from different companies to ensure the reliability of the questionnaire.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of parts 2 to 6, ranged from .759 - .974.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

After receiving permission to collect data from four international companies in the Bangkok
metropolitan area, the present study was conducted at the end of 2014. The participants were
given an introduction to the research and the research objectives, and were also asked
whether they were willing to respond to the questionnaire. Then the questionnaire was
administered to 40 computer engineers with the assistance of research assistants over a period
of two weeks. All 40 engineers returned the completed questionnaires, and one-on-one
interviews with four of the engineers were conducted a month after the questionnaire was
first distributed.
SPSS for Windows, version 16.0, was used for all statistical analyses, using
descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, standard deviations, and percentages. The
data from the four one-on-one interviews were transcribed and studied in order to develop
common themes regarding the opinions of these engineers regarding English workplace
communication in their companies.

115
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

FINDINGS

In this section, the quantitative and qualitative data are presented, as well as the research
questions.

QUANTITATIVE DATA

TABLE 1. The Necessity of English Language Proficiency at Work

Necessity of English language proficiency Mean SD Level

1. Job recruitment 3.13 .751 high
2. Routine work 3.00 .762 high
3. Job promotion and/or advancement 3.31 .535 high
Overall 3.15 .568 high

The data above report on the necessity of English language proficiency in the
engineering workplace. The electrical engineers in this study agreed that the language
proficiency is highly required for job recruitment, routine work and job promotion and/or
advancement. In other words, such proficiency seems to play an important role in those
engineers’ workplaces.
TABLE 2. Frequency of Interpersonal Communication in English

Interpersonal communication in English Mean SD Frequency

1. Clients 2.28 .851 sometimes
2. Thai colleagues 2.16 1.167 sometimes
3. Foreign colleagues based in Thailand 3.06 1.014 often
4. Foreign colleagues based in other countries 2.66 1.260 often
5. Supervisors/superiors 2.44 1.050 sometimes
6. Subordinates 2.09 1.146 sometimes
7. Suppliers/contractors 2.09 1.170 sometimes
Overall 2.40 .849 sometimes

In Table 2, the frequency of interpersonal communication in English (clients, Thai

colleagues and foreign colleagues based in Thailand) is reported. The data shows that
interpersonal communication in English, between engineers and their foreign colleagues,
based in both Thailand and other countries is frequent with means of 3.06 and 2.66
respectively.
TABLE 3. Frequency of English Communicative Situations

English communicative situations Mean SD Frequency

Among colleagues in the same department
1. Discussing work-related matters informally 2.63 .793 often
2. Persuading colleagues 2.34 .937 sometimes
3. Giving feedback on colleagues 2.34 .827 sometimes
4. Conversing informally and socially 2.69 .896 often
5. Following instructions/directions from colleagues 2.42 .807 sometimes
6. Building relationships 2.59 .875 often
7. Instructing, explaining and demonstrating 2.50 .879 sometimes
Overall 2.51 .760 sometimes
At the meeting
1.Conducting oral presentations 2.50 .916 sometimes
2. Leading discussions and exchanging opinions 2.25 1.047 sometimes
3.Participating in discussions and exchanging opinions 2.53 1.016 sometimes
4.Persuading other participants 2.31 .931 sometimes
Overall 2.40 .909 sometimes
During working in a team

116
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

1.Building relationships among colleagues 2.66 .971 often

2.Conversing informally among colleagues 2.69 1.029 often
3.Solving conflicts among colleagues 2.22 .941 sometimes
4.Negotiating with colleagues 2.47 .915 sometimes
5.Persuading colleagues 2.47 .950 sometimes
Overall 2.50 .880 sometimes
English communicative situations 2.48 .783 sometimes

The data shown in Table 3 reveal how often the engineers encounter English
communicative situations in their workplace (among colleagues, at meetings, and working in
teams). Communication among colleagues in the same department was the most likely to
happen (2.51). With regard to the sub-items, the three English communicative situations that
occurred most frequently in international workplaces included conversing informally and
socially in the same department (2.69), conversing informally among colleagues in a team
(2.69), building relationships among colleagues in a team (2.66), and discussing work-related
matters informally (2.63) and building relationships with colleagues in the same department
(2.59) often take place in the workplace.
TABLE 4. Self-report on English Language Proficiency

Self-report on English language proficiency Mean SD Level

Reading ability 2.78 .792 good
1. Reading simple words and phrases used in everyday life
2. Reading short, simple texts for the gist or specific information 2.81 .821 excellent
3. Reading texts written in everyday language, or relative to my 2.44 .878 fair
studies, at a rather slow pace
4. Reading articles or reports with a particular point of view, as long as 2.56 .840 good
there is adequate time
5. Reading longer, complex, and more specialized texts; and able to 2.44 .948 Fair
appreciate differences in style, and in a reasonable time frame
6. Reading any type of text easily, even abstract or complex 2.25 1.050 fair
documents; and able to appreciate subtle distinctions in style, and
implicit and explicit meanings
Overall 2.55 .702 good
Listening ability
1. Understanding words, and basic, familiar expressions in a limited
context 2.84 .723 good
2. Understanding expressions and common vocabulary relative to my 2.75 .718 good
immediate environment
3. Understanding key points in clear, standard speech when people 2.72 .888 good
speak slowly on familiar topics
4. Understanding longer talks and following complex lines of 2.16 .847 fair
argument on familiar topics; an understanding of most news programs
in standard dialect
5. Understanding extended speech, even when it is not clearly 2.16 1.02 fair
structured, and TV programs, with a relative degree of ease
6. Understanding any kind of spoken language, whether broadcast live 2.41 .945 fair
or prerecorded, as long as I have time to become familiar with a
particular accent
Overall 2.51 .713 fair
Writing ability 2.78 .792 good
1. Writing notes on short and specific pieces of information
2. Writing short and simple notes and messages 2.81 .821 good
3. Writing coherent texts or notes on familiar subjects 2.71 .902 good
4. Writing clear and detailed texts, reports and essays on topics in my 2.38 .976 fair
field
5. Writing clear, well-structured texts, and developing my point of 2.12 .975 fair
view on complex subjects
6. Writing clear, smoothly flowing and stylistically appropriate prose; 2.16 .954 fair
able to write summaries or critical reviews
Overall 2.51 .750 fair
Speaking ability 2.69 .738 good

117
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

1. Saying basic expressions, phrases and asking simple questions on

familiar subjects, as long as my interlocutor is willing to help me
understand and express myself
2. Responding to familiar topics, such as describing my job in simple 2.63 .751 good
terms, and carrying on a very limited conversation
3. Generally explaining my opinions or projects; spontaneously 2.38 1.040 fair
participating in conversations on familiar topics
4. Expressing myself clearly and in detail, actively participating in 2.34 1.004 fair
conversations on topics relative to my interests; spontaneously
communicating with a native speaker
5. Describing complex subjects clearly and in an appropriate manner; 2.28 1.020 fair
expressing myself spontaneously, clearly and easily in either
professional or social contexts
6. Describing or arguing complex subjects clearly, easily, and in an 2.19 1.090 fair
appropriate manner; expressing myself in any situation in standard,
idiomatic language with the appropriate nuances; correcting my
mistakes in a natural way which draws little notice
Overall 2.42 .814 fair
Self-report on English language proficiency 2.49 .694 fair

In Table 4, self-report of English language proficiency (i.e. reading, listening, writing

and speaking abilities) is shown. Obviously, the engineers perceived that their levels of
English language proficiency were at a fair level. However, their reading ability seemed to be
better, at least in comparison to their other skills. Considering that each ability ranged from
level 1 (novice) to 6 (general professional proficiency), these engineers tended to perform
better in the first three levels, described as novice (beginner), elementary, and basic working
proficiency (intermediate), based on the proficiency level descriptors of both CEFR and
TOEIC (Taillefer 2007).
TABLE 5. Self-report on Performance of English-related tasks

Self-report on performance of English-related tasks Mean SD Level

Reading tasks
1. Reading instructions on how to perform job 3.13 .492 well
2. Reading equipment manuals 3.13 .554 well
3. Reading project reports 2.91 .734 well
4. Reading official documents 3.06 .619 well
5. Reading engineering-related articles 3.00 .672 well
Overall 3.04 .492 well
Listening tasks
1. Understanding instructions on how to perform job 2.81 .535 well
2. Understanding key information when attending international 2.50 .762 fair
conferences/ seminars
Overall 2.66 .874 well
Writing tasks
1. Writing E-mails 3.03 .647 well
2. Writing meeting minutes 2.69 .859 well
3. Writing logbooks 2.72 .851 well
4. Writing project proposals 2.66 .787 well
5. Writing project reports 2.44 .878 fair
6. Writing business letters 2.53 .950 well
7. Writing memos 2.97 .740 well
8. Writing presentation slides 2.84 .808 well
Overall 2.73 .627 well
Speaking tasks
1. Making oral presentations 2.66 .745 well
2. Participating in conferences/seminars 2.50 .718 fair
3. Engaging in business interactions 2.53 .842 well
4. Talking about routine work and tasks 2.84 .723 well
5. Participating in a teleconference 2.53 .671 well
6. Responding on the telephone 2.69 .780 well
7. Engaging in informal and social conversations 2.97 .782 well
Overall 2.67 .627 well
Self-report on performance of English-related tasks 2.78 .513 well

118
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

The data in the table above show the engineers’ self-report on their performances of
English-related tasks (i.e. reading, listening, writing, and speaking tasks). Evidently, those
engineers perceived that they performed English-related tasks well in the engineering
workplace. However, they tended to perform English-related reading tasks the best of all
(3.04). These findings are also relevant to those in Table 4, in that the reading ability of these
engineers were perceived to be comparatively better than their other English abilities.
TABLE 6. A One-Week Record of English Workplace Communication

Productive skills Receptive skills

Speaking Writing Reading Listening
- Performing oral presentations - Writing emails to communicate - -
- Explaining information about with both Thai and foreign
product requirements colleagues
- Talking on the phone - Writing product requirements as a
- Talking with colleagues about reference for the team
work-related issues
- Providing ideas in a meeting
- Talking with colleagues about
general topics

In Table 6, the engineers’ one-week record of English workplace communication

(productive and receptive skills) regularly used at work is shown. Typically, the productive
skills (speaking and writing) seem to be more required during their work day. Also, speaking
skills are likely to be more essential in terms of completing routine work. However, receptive
skills (listening and reading skills) were not reported as being used as part of their typical
workplace communication. It may be assumed that the engineers felt challenged when asked
to speak and write as such skills require individual mastery. They have to create and deliver
their own ideas and messages to their interlocutors in spoken and written forms.

QUALITATIVE DATA

In this section, the data from the one-on-one interviews with four engineers, who replied the
five open-ended questions, is reported. The engineers’ responses were transcribed and studied
in order to develop common themes regarding the opinions of these engineers regarding
English workplace communication in their companies.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

A variety of organisations have formed individual professional settings in which domain

specific knowledge and English language proficiency plays a vital role.

English communication skills seem to be more important than technical skills in an

organisation in which the employees come from a diversity of cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. (Engineer 1)

Employees with language skills may make communication easier, move things forward
more quickly, and create a better reputation for their company. (Engineer 4)

However, the specific characteristics of job roles tend to require a different type of
language proficiency.
In the case of developers or testers, language skills are typically used less compared to
technical skills. When some help with communication was required, assistance from
colleagues, team members, or supervisors/superiors was obtained. Additionally, for
support staff, product or technical account managers, as well as managers who need to
communicate with customers or international teams, language and technical skills were
considered equally important. (Engineer 2)

119
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

THE FACTORS AFFECTING ENGINEERING CAREER ADVANCEMENT: ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE AND

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Clearly, in the case of international organisations that require communication between

stakeholders, both technical knowledge and language proficiency are necessary in terms of
career advancement.
As promotions create more responsibility and collaboration, language skills become
increasingly important as clear communication, such as directions, are communicated in
the same language among team members. (Engineer 2)

With increased coordination between team members, other teams, and even shareholders
from multiple nationalities, the more frequently communication occurs. (Engineer 3)

THE NATURE OF ENGLISH WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION: ENGINEERING ENGLISH AND GENERAL ENGLISH

The use of English in workplace communication consists of both engineering English and
general English, as the context of such communication involves everyday life and
professional communication.
Both general English and technical terms from engineering English were employed in
order to answer questions from customers about products, participate in development
team meetings, and perform product planning presentations. (Engineer 4)

However, the type of the language most frequently used depends on each
communicative situation.
General English was typically used to explain basic requirements to developers, while
engineering or geological English was mostly employed to discuss requirements with
shareholders. (Engineer 2)

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH: THE HOW AND THE WHO

The opportunity to communicate in English in interpersonal terms is limited by job role or

position.
Communication with foreign colleagues based in other countries frequently took place. In
addition, keywords or key sentences indicate an achievement in terms of communication.
(Engineer 1)

The focus of interpersonal communication was to convey messages to counterparts with

an emphasis on the bottom line, or the simple communication of a message. (Engineer 3)

Using direct and clear sentences was more important than using fancy words, and having
a so-called 'perfect' accent was abandoned in an effort to increase understanding between
interlocutors. (Engineer 4)

THE CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED IN COMMUNICATIVE SITUATIONS

Between colleagues, the demonstration, explanation and instruction of tasks in English seem
to be a significant challenge.

Developers with a background in computer science or computer engineering typically

developed software related to geology, petrophysical engineering, and the fundamentals
of reservoir engineering. Sometimes, they experienced difficulties achieving such tasks.
Thus, explaining all engineering theories to them in English in limited period of time is
not easy as understanding those theories requires more than 5 years at the undergraduate
level. Furthermore, providing feedback to colleagues was very challenging as it dealt
with both their language skills and psychological issues. (Engineers 3)

120
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

In terms of the kind of language used in meetings, the Thai engineers experienced
difficulty with skills such as leading a discussion, and sharing their opinions.

As a non-native English speaker, the individual leading the meeting did not have to use
English at a high level in order to impress the other participants. Additionally, talking to
team-members and other colleagues in informal rather than formal English may be more
appropriate, especially in terms of achieving their business goals, which are the true aim
of such meetings. (Engineer 2)

Persuading other participants in a meeting in English was a real challenge for most of the
participants, most of the time, especially as many native English speaking colleagues also
attend these meetings, and may speak English rather quickly. It was also challenging for
the participants to find a gap in order to speak up and convince others of their ideas.
Thus, there is a need for a well-prepared document recording their expressions and
speech during meetings, otherwise such content might be ignored or lost. (Engineer 3)

While working as a member of a team, the other challenge is to solve any conflicts that
may arise between colleagues in English. As subjects that cause conflict are often
sensitive, engineers with a limited ability to communicate may tend to exacerbate such
conflicts, especially if they have to interact with native English speaking engineers.
Therefore, a careful use of the language is required when a conflict needs to be resolved.
(Engineer 4)

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to investigate how Thai computer engineers typically perform in
international communicative situations, and to identify the ways in which these engineers
perceive their own English language proficiency, ability to perform English-language related
tasks, and their opinions on workplace communication in the English language in the
companies that they currently worked for.
First of all, Thai computer engineers were unable to deny the fact that English
language proficiency played a vital role in workplace communication because language
proficiency was a job requirement, and that they had been screened in terms of their domain-
specific knowledge and skills, and their ability to communicate in English. There were more
communication challenges identified in their routine work, as well as advancement in terms
of their career path, and the opportunity for promotion. The results of the present studies were
also consistent with other studies (Apelman 2010, Ayokanmbi 2011, Mohamed et. al. 2014,
Raina & Pande 2012, Rajprasit, Pratoomrat & Wang 2015, Reimer 2002, Ruff & Carter 2009,
Spence & Liu 2013, Thanky 2014). From the viewpoint of outsiders, it may seem that
computer engineers do not need to communicate as frequently in English as they are
supposed to, as they mainly deal with computer-related tasks. However, in reality, the
engineers who participated in the present study have proved that such viewpoints are false.
Besides which, the communication skills that they actually require, typically include the
following: discussions, explanations, formal and informal conversations, as well as making
oral presentations, negotiation, persuasion, problem-solving and conflict-resolution, as they
mainly have to deal with interpersonal communication, similar to what Keyton et. al (2013)
have confirmed in their research, even though the frequency of using such skills depends on
the nature of each professional area. More interestingly, employing such skills actually
challenges these Thai engineers to communicate in English in their workplaces in order to
transfer information and technical knowledge through a common language (Reimer 2002,
Ruff & Carter 2009).
Secondly, with regard to their English language proficiency, the computer engineers
perceived themselves as being at a fair level. According to the six proficiency level
descriptors of both CEFR and TOEIC tests (Taillefer 2007), these engineers perceived that

121
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

they were at level 3 (basic working proficiency) which corresponds with B1 (intermediate).
In terms of their perceived ability to performing work-related tasks, their reading skills were
more advanced than their other English language skills. These perceptions seemed reliable, as
according to the CEFR descriptor, the language proficiency level of a university graduate
should be at least at a B1 level. Even though perceived language proficiency may not assess
actual language proficiency, because factors such as reliability and validity are not
comparable to those of a standardised test, such as the TOEIC. McCroskey and McCroskey
(1988) claimed that self-reporting seemed to be a practical way of assessing how competent a
person thinks they are, as opposed to how competent they actually are. This kind of self-
assessment is practical in terms of judging the readiness of learners in terms of their
commitment to improvement and so on.
Finally, the opinions of some engineers regarding workplace communication in
English were of particular interest because EFL speakers had identified the actual priority of
workplace communication is intelligibility, rather than the use of so-called 'perfect' English.
These findings were also consistent with the key concepts of BEFL (Kankaanranta 2009,
Louhiala-Salminen, Charles & Kankaanranta 2005), and also consistent with the findings of
Desa, Suryani, and Yaacob (2010), which concluded that Thai EFL speakers used BELF for
both formal and informal situations for the purpose of getting their message across and
getting the job done, rather than focusing on accuracy in terms of their spoken English. These
engineers were also more likely to support such an idea as they were both non-native English
speakers and technical rather than linguistic experts. Thus, setting the main learning
objectives of English language courses for engineering students should be based on real-
world workplace situations for strategically effective communication and accuracy, while the
appropriateness of the language structure and its correct usage may be relegated to a
secondary priority (Evans 2013, Suviniitty 2007).

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the significance of the role of the English language in terms of
international workplace communication in the field of computer engineering, and reflected
what Thai computer engineers experienced and how they felt about international
communication through the medium of the English language. The increasingly high demand
for high-level communication skills among the computer engineers examined in the present
study includes skills such as the ability to work effectively in teams, not only with other
professional engineers, but across academic disciplines and corporate hierarchies. Therefore,
effective workplace communication through the English language is a key for organisational
and professional success, while the lack of effective communication skills tended to have a
negative influence on the job performance of engineers who deal with the international
clients and colleagues. In other words, technical knowledge is no longer sufficient in terms of
their job requirements.
According to the main findings, some pedagogical implications are suggested. For
example, researchers in the area of the English for Specific Purposes (ESP), such as
engineering educators, and other stakeholders, have confirmed that in order to successfully
operate on a global scale, the engineers of the future will need to be bilingual, at least, and
use English effectively as a language of international communication. Firstly, there should be
English for computer engineering courses at the tertiary level (i.e., English Fundamentals for
Socialisation, Engineering Report Writing, Presentation Skills, Engineering
Communications). This should be specifically developed as the nature of workplace
communication seemed to differ from other engineering fields, and oral and written

122
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

communications were reported as mostly taking place in their professional life (i.e., between
colleagues working in the same department, in meetings, or while working as a member of a
team) The establishment of such specifically designed courses would equip engineering
students with more realistic knowledge and language skills, which are urgently required in
their professional lives. More significantly, these courses could be offered to students
continuously throughout their tertiary education.
Secondly, the concept of BELF should be introduced to engineering students as non-
native English speakers (NNES), in ESP courses, because it apparently assisted many NNES
engineering professionals in reaching their communicative goals during international
business operations. The introduction of such a concept would raise the awareness of students
that comprehensibility is far more important than native-like English speech in terms of
successful international business communication. Finally, consistent with the concepts of
BELF, the practice of listening to a variety of accents (both native and non-native) would be
beneficial for future engineers as more business interactions occur among NNES engineering
professionals. This would allow engineering students get used to these accents, as some of
them are influenced by the first language, as well as increasing their confidence in terms of
communicating in real life situations.
However, there were some limitations found, in terms of a number of participants
(N=40) which were not enough to be able to generalize the current situation of workplace
communication in this field. In addition, the investigation was only conducted in international
companies in the Bangkok metropolitan area, with the other key companies situated in
industrial estates in Chonburi and Rayong, located in the provinces of eastern Thailand. The
inclusion of the participants from those industrial estates may have provided more insightful
information about international communication. In terms of further studies on this topic, in
the field of English for Specific Purposes, the researchers should take this issue into
consideration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researchers are grateful to the International College for Sustainability Studies at
Srinakharinwirot University for granting the research fund.
REFERENCES

Apelman, V. (2010). English at work: The communicative situation of engineers. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from
http://www.innovationsreport.com/html/reports/studies/english_a_corporate_
language_swedish_engineers_161480.html
Ayokanmbi, F. M. (2011). Competencies for global engineers and technologists. Journal of Industrial
technology. 27(1), 1-6.
Bandura, A. (2008). Social cognitive theory. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopaedia of
communication [electronic version]. London, England: Blackwell.
Berry, F. C., DiPiazza, P. S. & Sauer, S. L. (2003). The future of electrical and computer engineering education.
IEEE Transactions on Education. 46(4), 467- 476.
Evans, S. (2013). Perspectives on the ese of English as a business lingua franca in Hong Kong. Journal of
Business Communication. 50(3), 227–252.
Gerritsen, M. & C. Nickerson (2009). BELF: Business English as a lingua franca. In F. Bargiela-Chiapini (ed.),
The Handbook of Business Discourse, pp. 180-192. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Hart-Rawung, P. & Li, L. (2008). Globalisation and business communication: English communication skills for
Thai automotive engineers. World Academy of Science, Engineering. and Technology. Vol 24, 320-330.
Johnson, S., Lee, A. & McGregor, H. (1996).Engineering as captive discourse. Philosophy & Technology. 1, 3-
4.
Kankaanranta, A. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business
professionals. Journal of Business Communication.47(4), 380-407.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2013). Generic characterisation of civil engineering research article abstracts. 3L: The
Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 19(3), 1-10.

123
 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 21(3): 109 – 124

Khamis, N. & Ho-Abdullah, I. (2015). Exploring word associations in academic engineering texts .
Keane, A. & Gibson, I.S. (1999). Communication trends in engineering firms: Implications for undergraduate
engineering courses. International Journal of Engineering Educucation. 15(2), 115-121.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J. M., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T., Polasik, S. S., Ghosh, P. & Wu, C.
(2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviours. Journal of Business
Communication. 50(2), 152-169.
Kress, G. (1985). Socio-linguistic development and the mature language user: Different voices for different
occasions. In Wells, G. & Nicholls, J. (Eds.) Language and learning: An international perspective
(pp.135-150). London: Palmer
Latha, K. (2014). Role of English Language for engineering students. American International Journal of
Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. 7(2), 122-123
Louhiala-Salminen, L., &Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional communication in a global business context:
The notion of global communicative competence. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.
54(3), 244-261
Louhiala-Salminen, L., M. Charles & A. Kankaanranta (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate
mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes. 24, 401-421
McCroskey, J. C. & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring communication
competence. Communication Research Reports. 5(2), 108-113.
Mohamed, A. and others. (2014). Conceptualizing English workplace communication needs of professional
engineers: The challenges for English language tertiary educators. International Journal of
Contemporary Business Management. 1(1), 1-9.
Raina, R. &Pande, N. (2012).Communication competence of Indian engineers in IT & IT Sector. The Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations. 47(3), 511-526.
Rajprasit, K., Pratoomrat, P., & Wang, T. (2015). Perceptions and problems of English language and
communication abilities: A final check on Thai engineering undergraduates. English Language
Teaching. 8(3), 111-120.
Rajprasit, K., Pratoomrat, P., Wang, T., Kulsiri, S. & Hemchua, S. (2014). Use of the English language prior to
and during employment: Experiences and needs of Thai novice engineers. Global Journal of
Engineering Education. 16(1), 27-33.
Reimer, M.J., (2002). English and communication skills for the global engineer. Global Journal of Engineering
Education. 6(1), 91-100.
Ruff, S. & Carter, M. (2009). Communication learning outcomes from software engineering professionals: A
basis for teaching communication in the engineering curriculum. Paper presented at 39th ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference. October 18 – 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX
Samson, D. (1989). Management for engineers. Melbourne: Longman.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spence, P. & Liu, G. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an English needs
analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan.
English for Specific Purposes. 32, 97-109.
Suryani, I., Desa, H., & Yaacob. (2010).Malaysia-Thailand cross-border communication: The potential of
Business English as Lingua Franca. Journal of Human Capital Development. 3(2), 91-103.
Suviniitty, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: A tool for educating engineers. Paper presented at International
Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007September 3 – 7, 2007 Coimbra, Portugal
Taillefer, G.F. (2007). The professional language needs of economics graduates: assessment and perspectives in
the French context. English for Specific Purposes. 26(2), 135-155.
Thanky, P. (2014). Importance of English and communication skills for technical professionals. International
Journal of Science Research. 3(4), 211-212.
Welch, D., Welch, L. & Piekkari, R. (2005). Speaking in tongues: The importance of language in international
management processes. International Studies of Management and Organisation. 35(1), 10-27.

124