Is it So Difficult to Increase the TL in Classroom
Interactions?
By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Twitter: @jonacuso
Post
180
“With the rise of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and a
growing emphasis on oral communication skills, the role of student talk in the
language classroom has become more important than ever” (Hilliard, 2014) . This can be seen
across the globe in ELT settings where language instructors are reluctant to
use the target language (TL) as the means of instruction in the classroom, and
Costa Rica is not the exception from this futile teacher practice. Knop (n.d.),
in an article published by Emory University, stresses the importance the TL has
in the cognitive development of students who are learning a foreign language.
“Excessive TTT [Teacher Talking Time] limits the amount of STT (student talking
time). If the teacher talks for half the time in a 60 minute lesson with 15
students, each student gets only 2 minutes to speak” (Darn, 2007) . Then, the
rhetorical question stays in the air; is it so difficult to increase the TL in
classroom interactions?
Knop (n.d.) proposes a series of steps to
increase the use of TL use in the classroom; what are her language practice
proposals? Knop’s proposal –though not necessarily connected to the English
Teaching per se- focuses its attention on the promotion of student interaction
in class along with having learners use the TL; Knop’s ideas are: a) language ladders, b) day’s lesson plan on board, c) informal pair & S2S interactions, d)
Gouin series, e) amount of “teacher talk,” f) authentic
and appropriate input, and g) class participation in the TL. For Knop
(n.d.), these classroom practices can encrease the amount of student talk, but
this will not “happen overnight;” these “strategies need to be tried out and
implemented in a progressive manner over a period of time” (Knop, n.d.) to really witness
some language use change in classroom settings.
Hilliard (2014), similarly to Knop (n.d.), puts it simply,
language teachers have to “start each class with a speaking activity,”
something that is quite close to what Knop labels as language ladders. A language ladder is a “set of commonly used
classroom expressions focused on classroom function.” And as Hilliard’s (2014)
proposal regarding a speaking activity, Knop (n.d.) suggests using a great
array of speaking activities that can set the mood for the class to start
speaking, on the one hand by St2T interactions (i.e. seeking information, expressing confusion, making excuses, asking
persmission, making small talk, exchanging greetings and leave-takings, giving
directions, praising and encouraging, and disciplining), and on the other hand, St2St interactions (expressing likes & dislikes, expressing
agreement and disagreement, giving compliments, inviting someone, and accepting and refusing and invitation).
All of these suggested language ladders can be labeled as possible ways to test
learner’s descriptors in the ACTFL guidelines (American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) or even traced
within the can-do table proposed by ETS for the TOEIC test (Educational
Testing Services, 2000) .
Not
only Knop (n.d.) but also Hilliard (2014) have similar suggestions regarding TL
use in the classroom. Hilliard (2014) proposes to “let students do the work for
you.” In this line of thought, it is possible to group Knop’s nomenclatures for
the steps to follow for teacher’s lesson plans and her taxonomy for “informal
pair” interactions (Knop, n.d.) .
Instead of fostering excessive teacher talk, Knops wants to have language
students make use of the language during class interactions. “Another way of
helping students understand and use the target language is to put an outline of
the lesson plan” on the board, says Knop (n.d.). For this very reason, Knop
adduces that it is necessary to use the lesson plan on the board at the start of class, during class, and at the end of class (n.d.). The use of
the outline of the instructor’s plan can help language students to review
material before major tests and quizzes; it can give language trainees a sense
of transition from topic to topic and of closure towards the end of the lesson;
and it can provide students with a sense of accomplishment.
“TTT
often means that the teacher is giving the students information that they could
be finding out for themselves, such as grammar rules, the meanings of
vocabulary items and corrections” (Darn, 2007) .
Bearing in mind Hilliard’s (2014) idea of having learners do the instructor’s
work is to follow Knop’s (n.d.) suggestions for “informal pairs” interactions.
Knop (n.d.) pigeonholes ten different types of language activities in her
taxonomy aiming at having students do the talking themselves: a) warm-ups, b) study of new verbs, c) learning
of a dialogue, d) vocabulary study, e)
grammar work, f) dictations, g) naming, h)
expressing references, i) describing and j) sharing information. All these kinds of activities are great paths
to guide learners towards the use of the TL language in the classroom rather
than just listening to the teacher talk. As suggested by Darn (2007), “a large
amount of TTT results in long stretches of time in teacher-to-class (T/class)
mode and a monotonous pace. Student under-involvement inevitably leads to loss
of concentration and reduced learning.” Knop’s (n.d.) thesis combined with
Hilliard’s (2014) proposal can indeed produce another kind of class interaction
in which student talk prevails.
Though
the term Gouin Series Method is not a
new term in language learning, it derives its name from its inventor, François
Gouin, a French Latin teacher. The approach advocated by Gouin is “to have
‘themes’ such as The Plant and to have students memorize sentences in sequence
relating to the theme” (Martin, 2009) . For Knop (n.d.), Gouin Series are
“organized in a logical sequence and students are usually directed to say the
sentences while acting them out.” As pointed out by the author herself, Gouin
Series do use “several meaning reinforcers” (Knop, n.d.) ,
allowing students to review language and use it fully attached to meaning and
use. Gouin Series will “appeal to various senses” and will “help teach
appropriate behavior in a cultural activity” (Knop, n.d.) .
At a cognitive level, language students are motivated to be using the
“three-dimensional grammar framework” endorsed by Larsen-Freeman (n.d.), where students not only exercise how a stucture is
constructed, but how it is used properly within a social context and what it
means for the native speakers when such a structure is built and used to convey
meaning. By means of the “three-dimensional grammar framework,” which
must be borne in mind by language instructors at all times, students can
discover cultural information about the language, which is only encased in
exercises where a critical, mental chronology of events can be sequenced. And
aside from the cultural component attributed to Gouin Series, language
instructors can also “engage students in active practice of the sentences and
actions” (Knop, n.d.) ,
connected in form, meaning, and use.
Hilliard (2014) recommends implementing “more authentic,
communicative classroom activities.” However, though Gouin Series are a good
first attempt to provoke communication in the classroom, they do not
necessarily yield the expected outcome at all times. “Anything from pair work
and group work, to discussions and debates, to task-based activities and games
can be utilized within a CLT framework” (Hilliard, 2014) . But all these
intances mentioned here must be nurtured by the provision of authentic “input”
in classroom interaction (Knop, n.d.) . “Considering
to the concept of authentic language input, Gilmore (2007) defined authentic
language input as the language carrying a real message which is created by a
real speaker or writer for a real audience” (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012) . So how can
authentic input be provided to students so they can get to use the language in
class?
“Bearing
in mind the nature of the communicative classroom, teachers should perhaps be
aware of the quality of their TTT and how it is used rather than trying to
reduce it to a bare minimum” (Darn, 2007) .
But still, are we providing input that is varied, authentic, and appropriate?
If we are not meeting the standards set by Bahrani
& Soltani (2012), we are bound to be providing inauthentic input, bound to
be directing classroom activities inappropriately, or bound to exert some more
control over the input that we are giving (Knop, n.d.) . Authentic
input/material can be imported into the classroom from various sources, and it
can help studends develop the target language if used properly; otherwise, we
will be responsible for its failure.
Knop’s
(n.d.) unique most significant addition to the use of the TL in the classroom
is not linked to authenticity in the input, but the surpassing importance of
keeping track of students’ participation. “A record participation is important
since in-class performance is considered an integral part of a student’s grade”
(Knop, n.d.) .
By doing so, the instructor can know –even as backwash- where his/her attention
is focused when practicing the TL in the classroom. “An ‘oral participation
grade’ might be given out to students, based on the summary of point or grades
earned for the frequency of their contributions and their use of the TL” (Knop, n.d.) . This can be indeed
used as a way to make language trainees aware of their active role or chosen
passivity in the classroom. In other words, learners have to be aware of the
implications of activity or inactivity in class and how it may affect their
performance grade and, why not, language development, learning, and
acquisition.
As
neatly stated by Knop (n.d.), the increase TL use in class will not happen
overnight. “Strategies need to be tried out and implemented in a progressive
manner over a period of time” (Knop, n.d.) .
Pesce (n.d.) subscribes “to the theory that in
the case of beginners, the ratio of TTT vs. STT should be 50-50, and this
percentage should progressively change till you achieve a 30% TTT vs. 70% STT.”
But Pesce (n.d.) points out, as suggested
by Knop (n.d.), that the teacher needs to identify what really works for
his/her class, but class attention, talk, and participation must be fixed upon
the learner. Once these three elements are fixed on the student, the strategies
proposed here can help educators increase the use of the target language in all
classroom interactions.
American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. Alexandria,
VA, USA: ACTFL.ORG.
Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012,
February 2). An Overview on How to Utilize Authentic
Language Input for Language Teaching. (P. M. S. Thirumalai, Ed.) LANGUAGE IN
INDIA, 12, 800-807. Retrieved June 20, 2015
Darn, S. (2007, August 15). Teaching English.
Retrieved June 20, 2015, from BBC British Broadcasting Corporation:
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time
Educational Testing Services. (2000). TOEIC Can-Do Guide.
New Jersey, New Jersey, USA: The Chauncey Group.
Hilliard, A. (2014, February). TESOL Connections.
Retrieved June 20, 2015, from TESOL Connections:
http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/issues/2014-02-01/3.html
Knop, C. (n.d.). Language Center. Retrieved June 17,
2015, from Emory College of Arts and Science:
http://languagecenter.emory.edu/home/documents/constanceknop.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (n.d.). Institut für Anglistik.
Retrieved June 20, 2015, from Universität Innsbruck:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/anglistik/staff/freeman/course-documents/tesfl_-_teaching_grammar.pdf
Martin, J. (2009, February 18). The Language Nest.
Retrieved June 20, 2015, from The Language Nest: http://languagenest.blogspot.com/2009/02/designing-gouin-series.html
Pesce, C. (n.d.). Busy Teacher. Retrieved June 20,
2015, from Busy Teacher:
http://busyteacher.org/13959-how-to-increase-student-talking-time-7-techniques.html
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Post a Comment