AYUDAS AL SECTOR APÍCOLA (PRODUCTOR+TRANSFORMADOR)

Each of the six CS lessons was developed as part of an ongoing action research process of planning, action and observation, and reflection. This process was adapted from Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) reflective research cycle. Their model illustrated

142 the complex and ongoing process of action research, composed of simple and easy to follow stages of planning, action and observation, and reflection. I combined action and observation as one stage because these interrelated two stages comprised overlapping and recurring implementation, data collection, and data analysis before making reflections. The adapted process of action research is described below (also see Figure 5.1).

Initial reflections from Phase One

The needs analysis in Phase One of my action research (See Chapter Four) suggested what CSs should be taught and how they should be taught to maximise

students’ oral communication performance. The results from phase one revealed that

there were groups of students with mixed levels of oral communication performance in

this classroom action research. Therefore, to plan “what to teach”, I primarily selected

five core CSs which the data showed would be useful to both the medium and lower level students. These CSs were circumlocution, approximation, use of fillers, direct appeals for help, and modified interaction. The literature also supported the choice as these CSs all play effective roles as problem solving devices and are teachable (e.g., Faucette, 2001; Lam, 2006; Nakatani, 2005; Rossiter, 2005).

Circumlocution and approximation were considered the most effective achievement strategies which could help students to compensate for their linguistic gaps with alternative linguistic items, contributing to the delivery of clear and elaborate messages. Although the medium level students already used these CSs frequently, it seemed useful for them to learn a greater variety of expressions for circumlocution and more appropriate words for approximation. The lower level students also needed to be introduced to and encouraged to use a variety of language expressions for these CSs.

143 Lexicalised fillers were also selected because they were useful for stalling for time to think about what to say, rather than remaining silent, repeating the same words, or using non-lexicalised fillers (e.g., um, ah, and er). The findings showed that only a narrow range of fillers was employed in the pre-assessment. Therefore, useful expressions for fillers would be introduced to the medium and lower groups of students so that they would be able to apply these expressions to fill pauses in their conversation.

In addition, two types of interactional strategies (direct appeals for help, and modified interaction) were chosen because they helped students to negotiate meaning with the interlocutor. Appropriate and useful expressions needed to be introduced to both groups of students, particularly the lower level who often asked the interlocutor for help and repetition.

Apart from these five CSs, I also incorporated additional CSs during the

instructional periods to ensure that students’ needs were met. These additional CSs could be either selected from the CS framework for the current action research project or suggested from the literature. The major consideration for selecting additional CSs to teach was their usefulness for helping students in solving an oral communication problem that emerged within a lesson’s context and content.

To plan “how to teach” these CSs, I intended to utilise diverse communicative tasks which were relevant to the tourism context in Thailand as the use of CSs varied according to the task type (Khan, 2010; Rossiter, 2005). The task of describing Thai culture-specific situations and terminology in Phase One was useful to elicit circumlocution and approximation, but more open two-way tasks had to be considered for fostering the use of interactional strategies. These tasks also had to be sufficiently challenging to encourage students to use more CSs.

144 I also planned to include linguistic knowledge in the CS lesson to maximise the effective use of CSs. Based on the findings from Phase One, the lower level students were unable to use CSs effectively because of their limited linguistic knowledge. A range of lexical knowledge would help them to produce appropriate expressions and lexical items for circumlocution, approximation, fillers, direct appeals for help, and modified interaction strategies. Linguistic knowledge (e.g., vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar) and language scaffolding for target CSs equips students to more confidently perform the target tasks and take risks when using CSs.

The development and implementation of each lesson followed the same cycle of a) Planning, b) Action and observation, and c) Reflection. These processes are described in the following pages.

Planning: Development of the weekly CS lesson

The first CS lesson was designed, based on reflections from Phase One and Lesson 2 onwards were on the basis of the previous lessons and other reflections as mentioned earlier. Each lesson comprised key CSs to be taught, pre-task activities, and target tasks. Then, each lesson was piloted with two volunteer graduates in tourism and changes were made prior to its implementation.

Action and observation (1): Implementation of the communication strategy lesson

As a teacher researcher in this action research project, I taught each lesson mainly in the English language, which was one three-hour session each week. I started each lesson with two hours of pre-task activities. These activities included reviewing previous CSs used, introducing key CSs, and practicing language scaffolding for using CSs, and essential linguistic knowledge for performing target tasks. In the last hour of

145 the CS lesson, the students were asked to perform the target task with the English speaking teacher who was asked to audio record and provide feedback on the task as

well as the students’ performance.

Action and observation stage (2): Data collection and analysis from students’ self- report questionnaires and my teaching journals

After each lesson, students were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire.

The English speaking teacher’s feedback and students’ feedback from the students’ self- report questionnaire were included in my teaching journals. I also described the

development and implementation of the CS lesson, noted the English speaking teacher’s feedback on the task and students’ performance, and provided my own feedback on the lessons and students’ performance. Data collection and analysis from students’ self- report questionnaires and my teaching journals are discussed in detail in the following Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6.

Reflection: Ongoing reflections for planning next lesson

The data from students’ self-report questionnaires and my teaching journals were used for making reflections for planning the next lesson. The focus was on identifying key issues in communication and ideas for selecting the CSs to be taught next, as well as for designing tasks and pre-task activities. Reflections for planning each lesson are discussed in detail in my teaching journals (See Section 5.7).