|
The Development of Interactive
Oral
Proficiency in the Classroom
by Jake Haymes
- 2
Possible approaches
Activities which call upon the students' ''vast private store
of knowledge, opinions and experience" (4) as a classroom
resource have two major benefits. Firstly, we can be sure
that the language the students are producing, or attempting
to produce, is relevant to them. This language can be focused
on subsequently and I would suggest that it is more likely
to be internalised because a need or desire has already been
demonstrated. Secondly, students are encouraged to relate
to one another as people and not just language learners. Having
this dynamic within the classroom creates the right conditions
for realistic interpersonal communication (5).
Once this atmosphere has been established we need to look
at how language performance can be enhanced. It would seem
that an examination of what actually happens during interactive
talk exchange via conversational analysis is the ideal starting
point. If we use authentic discourse as the basis for learning
then the student will be concentrating on use. De-contextualised
structures can only demonstrate usage and although the linguistically
competent learner may eventually be able to produce many language
possibilities, he or she will be no nearer commanding probable
language (6). The use of transcripts to focus on the features
listed below allows "learners time to notice features
that may not be noticed for a long time if only heard in the
flow of real-time conversation." Willis, J & Willis,
D (1996).
- Fixed expressions / semi fixed expressions
- Vague language
- Discourse Markers
- Openings, closing and adjacency pairs
- Back-channelling
- Pragmatic meanings
Once 'partially pre-assembled patterns' and 'formulaic frameworks'
(Widdowson 1989) have been elucidated and analysed, suitable
practice activities can ensue. Native speakers build discourse
from multi-word items and encouraging our learners to do the
same can go some way to developing fluency. The learner is
able to minimise "the amount of clause-internal encoding
work to be done and frees himself to attend to other tasks
in talk-exchange." Ellis (1997).
Vague language, or language which enables the speaker to
continue talking despite being unable to recall an exact word
or expression is a common feature of native discourse and
is an essential tool for the learner. If the students have
access to a productive store of items such as the thing you
use for… and it's a bit like… then they will have
the confidence to attempt longer stretches of speech where
they would otherwise finish the turn.
Dornyei and Thurrell (1994) highlight the value to the learner
of other conversational strategies such as paraphrase, approximation,
appeal for help, asking for repetition/clarification, interpretive
summary (So are you saying that…?), checking (Are you
with me?) and fillers. These provide "a sense of security
in the language by allowing extra time and room to manoeuvre."
More focus on the communicative meaning creating potential
of utterances could lead to a mushrooming of learners output
capacity. I believe that learners at all levels have a store
of fixed or semi-fixed expressions that they have assimilated
and are confident in producing. However, they tend to limit
their use to the meaning they were first exposed to. This
meaning is usually the most literal although not necessarily
the most frequent. For example, another meaning of I'd like
to help you could be made available for almost immediate output
with just a little focus on sentence stress. Pragmatic meanings
and indirect speech acts seem to be common in interactive
talk where speakers tend to share and assume most knowledge.
The contexts provided by transcripts are invaluable in guiding
learners to an increased awareness of the extent to which
relatively simple and therefore accessible utterances can
be used to convey a variety of functions and meanings (7).
Planning time can significantly aid both the quantity and
quality of the language produced. Foster's (1996) study found
that preparation time for narratives led to improvements in
both syntactic complexity and fluency. While it may be argued
that this does not replicate what would happen in 'real life'
communication, I think that the effect on learner confidence
is invaluable. Because the students have planned the output
themselves they are more likely to be able to access it at
the production stage. When this approach is combined with
some teacher involvement, as advocated by Johnson's (1991)
'tennis clinic strategy', the student also benefits from being
able to 'try out' and modify new output before the communicative
activity is embarked upon.
(4) Jones (see bib.) quoting M Swan 'A critical
look at the communicative approach (2)' ELTJ 39/2, 1985
(5)In these conditions, learners can speak to each other about
things that matter to them without having to verbalise the
co-text of situations. This replicates what happens in many
native speaker conversations and discussions.
(6) Widdowson (1978) illustrates the difference between what
could be said - language usage and what is said in any particular
context - language use.
(7) e.g. What are you talking / on about? = I don't agree
I haven't got any money = Can you pay?
Is that the time? = functional exponent of preparation for
leaving
To page 3 of
3 of article
To the lesson
plan
To the print
friendly page
Back to the
articles index
|
