Research and Development of Enrichment Curriculum to Enhance English Speaking Proficiency for Business and Work in Undergraduate Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e288986Keywords:
Enrichment Curriculum, Communicative English-Speaking Skills, Scenario-based Learning ApproachAbstract
Background and Aims: English is a business language that serves as a medium for conducting business because it conveys meaning directly and reliably, contributing to business success. However, Thailand ranked among the bottom three in Asia in the EF English Proficiency Index (2022–2024), falling short of the CEFR B2 requirement for graduates. Consequently, in 2024, the Office of the Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation Commission issued a policy mandating that higher education graduates achieve a CEFR English proficiency level of B2. This policy also addresses the need for English-language skills in the competitive ASEAN job market. This research aims to study the basic needs assessment and to develop the enrichment curriculum to enhance students' English skills for business and work in higher education.
Methodology: The research methodology comprised two phases. Phase 1 focused on studying and analyzing foundational data and essential needs for curriculum development. This phase involved two key steps: Document Analysis: Relevant documents would be analyzed using a document analysis protocol. Needs Assessment: Data on necessary needs would be gathered from various stakeholders. Qualitative Data: A semi-structured interview was conducted with two groups: administrators from higher education institutions and three English language lecturers. Quantitative Data: Questionnaire was administered to three groups of experts—curriculum development, English language teaching, and measurement/evaluation—as well as 50 higher education students currently enrolled in a basic English course and eight entrepreneurs or graduate employers. Quantitative data were analyzed using means and standard deviations. Phase 2 involved curriculum development and quality evaluation. The developed curriculum would be assessed through focus group discussions with seven experts, and analyzed using content analysis.
Results: 1) The findings of this study revealed that the basic document study: there were ten elements of curriculum, four concepts of curriculum, and eleven instructional plans, the needs assessment study which was analyzed from personal data as follows: the qualitative analysis with interview on essential needs found that the enrichment curriculum complements the core curriculum, the participants emphasized that the design of the enrichment curriculum should be stakeholder-centric, exhibit practical relevance through contextualized simulations, integrate diverse in-class and extracurricular activities, and foster opportunities for autonomous student learning, while the quantitative analysis with asking about desirable essential needs and current conditions for the enrichment curriculum revealed that the overall results of the desirable essential needs from experts was at high level, whereas the current condition was at moderate level, the indicator of Priority Needs Index (PNI Modified) was at 0.30, the overall results of the desirable essential needs from students was at high level, whereas the current condition was at high level, the indicator of Priority Needs Index (PNI Modified) was at 0.08, the overall results of the desirable essential needs from entrepreneurs was at high level, whereas the current condition was at moderate level, the indicator of Priority Needs Index (PNI Modified) was at 0.34. 2) The results of developing the enrichment curriculum revealed ten elements of the curriculum: 1) Course Rationale, 2) Principles, 3) Objectives, 4) Course Description, 5) Learning Outcomes, 6) Course Time Structure, 7) Course Structure, 8) Learning Activities, 9) Learning Materials, and 10) Assessment and Evaluation. The result of the curriculum evaluation showed that this enrichment curriculum was at a high level.
Conclusion: This enrichment curriculum has ten elements as follows: 1) Course History, 2) Principles, 3) Objectives, 4) Course Description, 5) Learning Outcomes, 6) Course Duration, 7) Course Outline, 8) Learning Activities, 9) Learning Materials, and 10) Assessment and Evaluation. The main principles are as follows: 1) Improve English speaking skills by promoting knowledge of word choice, sentence structure, 2)Situation-based problem-solving 3)Learner-oriented focus to strengthen a positive attitude towards English 4) Situation-based measurement and evaluation and the instructional activities that promotes English proficiency for business and work have eleven elements as follows: 1) Instructional Approach 2) Activity 3) Timeframe 4) Learning outcome 5) Core Principle 6) Learning content 7) Learning activity 8) Task 9) Evaluation 10) Materials and equipment and 11) Learning resources.
References
กรมอาเซียน กระทรวงการต่างประเทศ. (2559). แผนแม่บทประชาคมอาเซียน 2025: เสาหลักประชาคมสังคมและวัฒนธรรมอาเซียน (ASCC). สำนักงานคณะกรรมการข้าราชการพลเรือน.
กาญจนา คุณารักษ์. (2558). การจัดการเรียนรู้แบบบูรณาการเพื่อพัฒนาทักษะในศตวรรษที่ 21. สำนักพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์.
จันทิมา แสงเลิศอุทัย. (2550). การพัฒนาทักษะการคิดของนักเรียนผ่านกิจกรรมภาษาอังกฤษ. วิทยานิพนธ์มหาบัณฑิต, มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น.
วิชัย วงษ์ใหญ่. (2554). การพัฒนาหลักสูตรระดับอุดมศึกษา. อาร์ แอนด์ ปริ้นท์.
สถาบันภาษาอังกฤษ. (2558). คู่มือการเรียนรู้ภาษาอังกฤษเพื่อการสื่อสาร. กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ.
สุวิมล ว่องวาณิช. (2558). การวิจัยและพัฒนา (R&D). สำนักพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
อาภรณ์ ใจเที่ยง. (2553). แนวทางการจัดการเรียนรู้ภาษาอังกฤษตามแนวคิด Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร.
Bartz, W. H. (1979). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Allyn and Bacon.
Beauchamp, G. A. (1981). Curriculum theory. The Kagg Press.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Brumfit, C. J., & Finocchiaro, M. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From theory to practice. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 233–242.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin et al. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge University Press.
Clark, C. M. (1973). Curriculum renewal in nursing education. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment—Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Donn, B. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press.
Errington, E. (2010). Preparing graduates for the professions using scenario-based learning. Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).
Feryal, Ç. (2014). The influence of critical thinking skills on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 4(2), 74–85.
Gillo, H. A. (2021). Exploring global competence in EFL learners. Global English Education, 8(3), 21–33.
Harmer, J. (2003). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Longman.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
Johns, A. M., & Dudley-Evans, T. (2000). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 203–225.
Lotti Baker, E., & Orr, J. (2014). Educating English learners: What every classroom teacher needs to know. Pearson.
Mackay, R., & Mountford, A. (1978). English for specific purposes: A case study approach. Longman.
McDonough, J. (1984). ESP in perspective: A practical guide. Collins ELT.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2024). Defining the skills citizens will need in the future world of work. https://www.mckinsey.com
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. Longman.
Piirto, J. (2000). Understanding creativity. Great Potential Press.
Reesa, C. (2013). Strategies for teaching English to gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 34–41.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2006). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Shenker, B., Gillingham, L., & Gaskell, J. (1996). Gender, education, and the hidden curriculum. Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Sümer, H. C., Doğan, S., & Özgür, H. (2024). Soft skills in 21st-century language learning. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100272
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. Harcourt Brace & World.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service. (2000). Volunteer program management. Texas A&M University.
Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Zellig, H. (1988). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings. MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.






.png)
