March 22, 2013 - A.M.: Grammar/Speaking

REPEAT AFTER ME: Reconceptualizing  Repetition. By Sandra Silberstein and Diane Larsen Freeman (scm)
Your takeaway: Don't be afraid to do short repetitive drills: they may be just what your beginners need.

Sandra – for decades, wewanting to rethink audiolingualism. One of her teacher trainees recently said to her that  she (trainee)  didn’t think she was allowed to do choral work any more. Is there still a place for this?   In 1972 , Silberstein and Freeman were graduate school students at Michigan. The Rainbow books were still around and drilled students. Michigan and Georgetown were the hubs of audiolingualism. Sandra now does critical discourse of war and other issues; Diane is into reading and grammar. The audience was shown a 1950's era ALM videoclip which caused all to cringe due to the excessive repetition required of students. Definitely out!

However, Sandra's experience in attempting to learn chants for the Torah made her realize that in some cases, it's very hard for studentsto reproduce language correctly without a good role model (the teacher). Drills can be effective after all. Diane explained this by detailing how complexity theory works.  Diane found drills useful while in the Peace Corps in Malaysia when she varied drills while needed.  How do drills work? Through behaviorism: it leads to habit formation through overlearning. Also, auatomaticity helps develop fluency. When language is automatic, students don't need to broker, or think about, language.

 

Decked Out: Using Cards to Create Flexible Communicative Grammar Activities, presented by Amelia Adams (ELS). Submitted by Brenda Winch (reprising a similar session done at the Houston Center)

Your takeaway: this kind of "mixer"activity is a great way to make grammar come alive for students.

 

Amelia presented on using verb cards (ex. “bake bread” or “take a bath”) for various classroom activities. The activity that Amelia had us try out was a mingle using the question form and short answers in the present perfect. First, we each drew a card from the verb card box and mentally formed a present perfect question about life experience: “Have you ever (baked bread)?” Second, we were instructed to look around the room for another teacher whom we thought would say “Yes, I have.” If that teacher answered in the affirmative, the question-asking teacher got to keep the card for 1 point and could then draw another (and repeat). Because we were “advanced” teachers, Amelia also had us ask 3 follow up questions. For example, “When did you bake bread? Who taught you how to bake bread? Was the bread tasty?” After we all settled down from the activity, we were put into pairs and told to create an activity using the cards that we could actually use in our classes this session. We came up with so many creative ideas! These cards are a reusable source for endless activities. It was a wonderful In-Service!

Of course, choice of which materials to drill on is important. Diane showed graphs of which verbs are the most frequent in English: learning these, and learning them well, makes a real difference. Language processing in all domains is very sensitive to frequency of occurence. In language learning, you take the resources (words) you have, and through repeated "soft assemblies", complex systems evolve.  In any case, true repetition doesn't exist: context and pronunciation varies. The value of that variability is that it allows humans to maintain their own distinctiveness and accommodate that of others. This is the social reward of repetition.  the conclusion of both presenters: repetition doesn't mean we are seeking perfectionism. We should expect some variation, and the act of repetition itself creates the foundation for many acceptable possibilities

 

Effects of Self-Monitoring and Correction on ESL Learners’ Oral Performance, presented by Nicholas Velde, Yuan Zhuang, and Okim Kang, Northern Arizona University. Submitted by Ward Morrow.

Your takeway: If you want students to effectively self-correct, your guidance is essential! 

I was drawn to this session because of the emphasis on self-monitoring and correction.  The abstract immediately made me think of the effort ELS has undertaken in developing new writing rubrics and TAGs.  It seemed from the abstract that the team from Northern Arizona University was employing similar principles of self-correction in oral performance that ELS is employing in our writing TAGs.  I knew that since we were looking at different skills, speaking vs. writing, a true apples-to-apples comparison might not be likely.  However, I was curious to see if any potential nexus existed that might be of value.

 

The study involved two heterogeneous groups of ESL students from China and Saudi Arabia.  Both groups received the same instruction in speaking over a 16-week ESL course.  The experimental group, however, had the opportunity to review and critique their oral presentations at home, by watching their presentations on Youtube.  The control group did not have the opportunity to self-evaluate by watching videos of their presentations at home.  Instructors used detailed evaluation rubrics to assess four presentations from each student throughout the 16-week session.  Each presentation was evaluated in terms of presentation skills, oral proficiency, and pronunciation. 

The team conducted this study on three separate occasions.  In the first 16-week study, the team found little improvement by the experimental group over the control group in any of the three categories.  In the second 16-week study, the team found a wider, yet still relatively small, difference between the experimental group and the control group in terms of oral proficiency.  In the final 16-week experiment, the team found that the oral proficiency of the experimental group showed marked improvement over that of the control group.  Differences, however, in pronunciation and “presentation skills” did not show significant differences.  

Why did the three studies show differing results each time, with the oral proficiency of the experimental group improving more with each study?  The answer is relatively simple:  guidance.  In the first study, the team had the experimental group watch their presentations at home in the evening and offer a self critique.  However, the students received no guidance from their instructors in what to look for as they did the critique. 

In the second study, the team gave the experimental group more input on what to look for as the students critiqued themselves.  In the third study, the experimental group received the most specific and concrete guidelines on what to look for.  With these concrete guidelines, the experimental group was most apt to see the problems with their oral performance and engage in self-corrective strategies. 

Concrete guidance was the nexus I was hoping to find between the study of oral performance, and the use of writing TAGs at ELS.  As the study showed, oral performance did not improve simply by watching one’s own presentation.  It was only when students were given specific guidelines in what to look for that they were able to clearly identify problems and self-correct in future presentations.  Thus, their oral performance improved.  This is exactly what ELS is hoping to see through the use of TAGs:  Consistently raising students’ awareness of specific achievement goals will give students the ability, over time, to identify errors in writing and self-correct.  The result will be better writing. 

Will the ELS TAGs have the same effect of improving writing as this study showed with self-evaluation of oral skills?  Only time will tell.  However, the presentation left me feeling very optimistic that are on the right track to improving writing skills.

Creating and Choosing the Best Materials for Speaking and Pronunciation.  Presented by Marsha Chan, Judy Gilbert, Tamara Jones, and Steve Jones. Submitted by Stephanie Owens  Our takeaway: You can touch pronunciation in any course—and should.

This panel of speakers shared materials and techniques for teaching pronunciation.  An interesting part of the presentation was that they all focused on teaching “the prosody package,” which includes word stress, speech groups, rhythm, focus, linking, and intonation.  This was rather new for me because I’ve always focused more on minimal pairs, short/long vowels, etc. 

Judy Gilbert’s portion of the presentation really focused on the value of emphasizing prosody.

Tamara Jones spent the most time outlining activities that can be done with just about any exercise in any book; she used pages from All Clear 2, Azar Grammar, Longman TOEFL and Headway.  I liked this a lot because she showed that you don’t have to devote an entire course on pronunciation.  Some techniques:

Word Stress·         Teach word stress at the same time you teach vocabulary.  Ask students to sort words into stress groups (another exposure to vocab).

o	Oo	oO	Ooo
Box	table	suggest	envelope

·         Choral Repetition (aka Drills)

o   Use body movements to emphasize stress

§  Stretch an elastic

§  Open your arms

§  Stand up

§  Open your hands

                        Give a speaking quiz in which the students have to pronounce the stress correctly

Speech Groups

§  Break a reading text into thought chunks – this is useful for long texts with complex sentences, like TOEFL readings.    e.g.  Yesterday/I went/to the store. 

§  Sentence matching by thought group (It’s frightening     ….  to walk alone at night

§  Slashing Practice – read a text aloud and insert the slash with a dramatic arm movement and corresponding sound effect 
 

Rhythm

§  Mark stress in sentences and drill accordingly

o   Example from Azar exercise on can/can’t

§  A cat can climb trees, but it can’t fly. 

§  Clap out the stressed words in a sentence, then add in the “garbage grammar words” --- notice how the stress and speed of the sentence doesn’t change.

§  Class really fun (3 claps) à This class is really fun. (Still 3 claps)

§  Have students make a recording, transcribe, and mark the stress.  Then compare with a native speakers markings. 

Linking

§  Mark links in vocab/idiomatic expression

o   Hold on à Hol  don

§  Listen to songs and mark the linked words

Intonation

Tamara pointed out that this is one of the least corrected mistakes, but can be the mistake that most negatively affects communication.  Example – a store clerk who says, “Please come again” with flat intonation doesn’t send the intended message. 

§  Mark intonation in pragmatic dialogues

o   Sorry I’m late. 

§  Choral repetition

o   Can use kazoos/humming to emphasize the tone over the meaning

o   Teacher acts as a conductor to emphasis intonation

§  Mirroring Project

o   Students select a 2-3 minute YouTube clip

§  Transcribe it

§  Mark the intonation

§  Memorize it

§  Act it out

§  Video tape
 

·         Tips:  Don’t use cartoons, screen the clips for inappropriate scenes language, and have students choose to mirror speakers of the same gender.

Marsha Chan also presented on similar activities and shared her YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/PronunciationDoctor
 
 

A fresh look at articulatory setting and intelligibility, by Dreah Stratton (ELS/San Diego) and Dr. rich Robison. Submitted by Dreah Stratton.

Dr. Robison briefly reviewed the development of the articulatory setting construct and the elements that constitute it and explained how articulatory setting is instrumental both to accent and intelligibility. I presented practical classroom techniques for incorporating articulatory setting into pronunciation instruction, from raising students' awareness via video clips, to videotaping them speaking English and their L1, to compare their mouth movement, and to practice articulator stretch exercises. Finally I reported the survey results from my class regarding the articulatory setting techniques and its relation to improving pronunciation, which were very positive.