Desarrollo de una situación revolucionaria

This thesis is certainly not the first attempt to improve small group discussion in the language classroom. Previous attempts have tended to focus on training students to use oral communication strategies. This section reports on various L2 language classroom oral communication strategy training (OCST) programs that have attempted to achieve small group oral interaction or oral interaction in general. Lam (2006: 142) defines L2 oral communication strategies as “tactics taken by L2 learners to solve oral communication problems”. Attempts to train learners to use effective strategies have had mixed results. Equally, beliefs about OCST are divided between those who believe strategies can be taught, that those that believe otherwise. Those that believe communication strategies can be taught, foreground the need for learners to acquire effective expressions that facilitate talk (e.g. Dörnyei 1995; Gallagher Brett 2001; Konishi & Tarone 2004; Lam 2005). Furthermore, research into metacognitive strategy training (Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Wenden, 1991) has shown that language learning may further be enhanced by “raising the learner’s awareness of the learning process” (Nakatani 2005: 76). However, to my knowledge, only one study

43

(Halbach 2013) has successfully attempted to develop L2 learner awareness of exploratory talk for language learning, as is also the case in this thesis. On the other hand, it has been debated whether space should even be allocated for strategies to even be taught at all. Some researchers consider that the cognitive processes responsible for selecting a strategy for facilitating communication is not affected by any form of overt training (Bialystok, 1990; Kellerman, 1991; Poulisse, 1993).

Both Lam (2006) and Nakatani (2005) note that relatively few studies have investigated the effects of interventionist OCST, although Lam points to a small number of studies that have made such attempts. These include a) Dörnyei (1995), who found tentative evidence in favor of OCST after six weeks of training; b) Salamone and Marsal (1997), who showed no difference in improvement between test and experiment classes in strategy training in French L2 undergraduate classes; c) Scullen and Jourdain (2000) who conducted a study of strategy training to French L2 undergraduate classes in the US and also showed no difference in improvement between control and experiment classes, albeit with a relatively small amount of training (three sessions); d) Rossiter (2003) who administered 12 hours of OCST, but concluded little impact on overall strategy use. As a result, Rossiter foregrounded the need to foster group unity and a positive environment for learning, but did not recommend allocating hours of class time to strategy training.

The following strategy training studies were found to be particularly helpful to the Talk Skills project and details are offered here of the studies along with their strategy models. The Nakatani (2005) study is particularly relevant to this research because it focused on both metacognitive awareness training and OCST to improve speaking proficiency. Within the study, Nakatani offers the following model of oral communicative strategies, distinguishing between achievement strategies, described as good learner behavior, and reduction strategies, described as negative strategies, generally used by learners of low proficiency. Therefore, achievement strategies were selected for explicit strategy instruction within the study.

44 Table 2 Nakatami’s (2005) model of oral communicative strategies Achievement

Strategies Definition of strategy

help-seeking strategies

Two types of help seeking strategies are distinguished: appeals for help and asking for repetition.

modified interaction

strategies

Where students sent signals for negotiation to overcome communication difficulties. includes confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests.

modified output strategies

When students rephrase an utterance in response to their conversation partners’ signals for negotiation.

time-gaining strategies

When the speakers had difficulties expressing an idea, time gaining strategies are used to give the speaker time to think and to keep the communication channel open.

Maintenance strategies

Maintenance strategies consisted of two types: providing active response (such as I know what you mean) and shadowing (exact or partial repetition of preceding utterance).

self-solving strategies

When the learners encountered difficulties caused by their own insufficient linguistic resources, they used these strategies to solve the problems without their interlocutor’s help, such as by trying to find relevant linguistic items or expressions by using paraphrase,

approximation, and restructuring.

Reduction Strategies

message abandonment

strategies,

Avoiding engaging in communication when faced with problems in the target language. When they were not able to find appropriate forms or rules, they stopped speaking in midsentence and left a message unfinished.

first-language- based

These strategies consisted of interjections in L1 for a lexical item when the learner experiences communication difficulties.

45 strategies, interlanguage- based reduction strategies

Using interlanguage system to reduce intended utterances and avoid using certain language structures or specific topics.

false starts

Repeating one or more of the preceding words during difficulties in executing an utterance, causing disruptions in their plans for producing the intended utterances accurately.

One of the key premises of the study was that “pairing communication strategies with appropriate metacognitive strategy training could enhance learners’ awareness of strategy use and develop their communicative skills” (2005: 78). Using experimental research, Nakatani gave 12 weeks of metacognitive plus oral communication strategy training to the experimental group and no training to a control group during a normal CLT based EFL course. The training consisted of giving the learners an ‘oral communication strategy sheet’ that contained examples of oral communication strategies at the beginning of the course to draw on throughout the training. Strategies included paraphrasing and strategies on modifying input and output. During the strategy training, students were expected to “locate strategies that they believed useful for interaction in specific tasks” (ibid: 79-80). Another part of the training involved learners keeping a diary to reflect on their strategy use. Training itself involved sequences of review, presentation, rehearsal, performance, and evaluation. The results of the training were assessed and it was found that the experimental group improved on oral proficiency test scores, however, this was not the case for the control group.

The purpose of Lam’s (2006: 142) study was to assess “the effects of strategy instruction on task performance and learners’ strategy use for oral language tasks”. Within her study, Lam detailed the following model of eight strategies to be taught during the intervention

46 Table 3 Lam’s (2006) model of oral communicative strategies

Name of strategy Definition of strategy

Resourcing

The speaker resorts to the vocabulary, structures and ideas suggested in the task instruction sheet to help him/her solve problems with ‘what to say’ or ‘how to say it’.

Paraphrasing The speaker uses alternative expressions with similar meanings to replace those that he/she does not know or cannot think of ‘what to say’ or ‘how to say it’.

Using self-repetition

The speaker repeats what he/she has just said as a stalling device to gain time to think of ‘what to say’ or ‘how to say it’.

Using fillers

The speaker uses empty words such as ‘well’, ‘actually’, ‘you know’ etc. as a stalling device to gain time to think of ‘what to say’ or ‘how to say it’.

Using self-correction

The speaker hears himself/herself make a mistake in

pronunciation, grammar, choice of words etc. and immediately corrects it.

Asking for repetition

The speaker asks the interlocutor to repeat what he/she has just said to facilitate comprehension.

Asking for

clarification The speaker asks the interlocutor to clarify the meaning of what he/she has just said to facilitate comprehension.

Asking for

confirmation The speaker asks the interlocutor to confirm the meaning of what he/she has just said to facilitate comprehension.

47

Lam’s study also adopted an experimental design, in which an experimental class was given explicit strategy training, whereas the control group was given none. The strategy training intervention for the experimental group consisted of eight 1 hour 20 minute lessons spread over a 20-week course. The approach to strategy training instruction was guided on prior research on explicit strategy training (Chamot, 2004, 2005; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen & Weaver, 2006; Oxford, 1990; Rossiter, 2003a), briefly:

“Students were informed of the rationale and the value of strategy instruction, given names and examples of the eight target strategies to model on, provided with opportunities to use and consolidate the target strategies, and guided to evaluate strategy use at the end of the lesson” (Lam 2006: 145)

Lam used a multi method approach to analyzing the data including classroom video recordings, questionnaire data, observational data, and stimulated recall data. She found that OCST was effective for the experimental class, as, for example, they outperformed the control group when discussion tasks were evaluated, and described increasing use of strategies during stimulated recall as the course progressed.

The Cooperative Organization of Strategies for Oral Interaction (COSOI) program (Naughton 2006), was designed to specifically to improve EFL class small group interaction in a Spanish university. The program was founded on the belief that “students can be taught to engage in communicative tasks in ways that enhance language learning” (Naughton 2006: 171). The program is based on SLA theory and sociocultural theory and offers the following model of strategies

Table 4 Naughton’s (2006) model of oral communicative strategies

Name of Strategy Explanation

Follow-up questions

Considered to play an important role in fostering continued interaction, pushing the output of the interlocutor, ensuring attentive listening, and creating an

48

for communication (e.g., Bejarano et al., 1997).

Requesting and giving clarification

Learners to deal with communication breakdown through the restructuring of an initial utterance or the provision of

additional information.

Repair Learners attempt to recast their own or

another's non-target-like utterances in a target-like way.

Requesting and giving help

Encouraging learners to assist each other in L2/FL production by providing social mediation of the learning process during group interaction. This may imply a pre- emptive focus on form, which is relevant to the learners' contextualized activity and needs.

The direct teaching of the four lessons was embedded into a general EFL course, as follows:

“Each strategy is introduced by the teacher, who explains its function and form with the aid of a worksheet. The strategy is then practiced by small groups of students as they participate in a cooperative game. The games encourage positive interdependence and individual accountability, which are key aspects of co- operative learning … and the students are openly encouraged to collaborate with each other.” (ibid)

An experimental approach was used to judge the effectiveness of the cooperative strategy training. Experimental and control groups were video recorded, and effectiveness was judged in terms of overall participation, measured in number of turns taken, and use of interaction strategies, measured in the number of times the strategies

49

were used. While the results were advised to be viewed with caution, overall participation and interaction strategy use was higher in the experimental group.

The COSOI program was modeled on an earlier program by Bejarano et al. (1997), named the Skilled Use of Interaction Strategies (SUIS) program. The focus of the SUIS program was on the need to provide English language learners “with preparatory training in order to ensure more effective communicative interaction during group work carried out in the language classroom” (ibid: 203). The SUIS program offers the following model of oral communicative strategies.

Table 5 Bejarano et al.’s (1997) Model of oral communicative strategies Modified interaction

strategies Explanation

Checking for comprehension and clarification

This consists of comprehension questions asked by the speaker to check the interlocutor's understanding of the message (e.g. Do you see what I mean?) or by the listener in order to ask for clarification of the input (e.g. Did you say that...?).

Appealing for assistance Participants recruit help from other members of the group to express themselves more effectively in the target language (e.g. How do you say...?).

Giving assistance Interactants help other members of the group who have difficulty expressing themselves in the target language and appeal for assistance.

Repairing

Participants correct grammatical or lexical errors in the target language that were made by other members of the group.

50 Social interaction strategies

Elaborating

Building on a previous comment, enlarging on it by giving examples and adding sentences in order to expand the discourse unit.

Facilitating flow of conversation

A participant uses promoters that encourage continuation of the conversation.

Responding

A participant responds to a content-related question asked by a member of the group. Such responses can include expressions of agreement or disagreement. Seeking information or an

opinion

A participant asks for the speaker's opinion or seeks relevant or more detailed information

Paraphrasing A participant clarifies the previous speaker's contribution by restating it in his own words.

Bejarno et al. perceived the need to help learners negotiate for meaning and to actively engage with each other when asked to discuss in a group. OCST’s were divided into modified interaction strategies such as checking for comprehension and appealing for help, and social interaction strategies such as elaborating, paraphrasing, and responding. In order to train students to use effective strategies, specially designed tasks “were introduced at random over the eight weeks of the experiment” (ibid: 208). The procedure was described as follows:

“Training the students in SUIS was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, using the specially designed activities, the students were trained in one after another of the strategies. As each strategy was introduced its descriptive name was posted on the wall on a large placard. The second phase focused on consolidation of all the interaction strategies the students had learned. The students viewed together the video of the pre-test and discussed with the teacher which strategies had not been used and how they could have been incorporated. The students were constantly made aware of the strategies they needed to use in order to make the interaction more effective.” (ibid)

51

The results of the study showed that change in participation was greater for the experimental group than for the control group. In other words, there was an indication that the experimental group became “significantly more interactive as a result of the training” (ibid: 211).

In a review of strategy training models, Chamot (2004: 21) notes that they “are solidly based on developing students’ knowledge about their own thinking and strategic processes and encouraging them to adopt strategies that will improve their language learning and proficiency”. Nevertheless, given that the amount of strategy training varies among programs from three lessons to 12 weeks of training and eight lessons spread out over twenty weeks, and the procedures are also varied among programs, it is suggested here that more work is needed to discover an appropriate balance of metacognitive awareness raising and OCST and appropriate amount of training for my own specific context of 10-week Korean adult language classes. This study, therefore, draws on previous models of strategy training outlined here to help develop an intervention that promotes learner use of communication strategies, with the aim of developing their ability to engage in exploratory talk for language learning. The model of strategies included in the Talk Skills project is offered in Table 12, p.137. The issue of intervention design and development will be explored further in chapter 4, which outlines the design-based research methodology of the thesis.