Writer : Ani Suryani
Class :
3B
NPM :
10211210043
Developing
Classroom Speaking Activities; From Theory to Practice
Jack
C Richards
The
mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second or foreign
language learners. Learners consequently often evaluate their success in
language learning as well as the effectiveness of their English course on the
basis of how well they feel they have improved in their spoken language
proficiency. Oral skills have hardly been neglected in EFL/ESL courses
(witness the huge number of conversation and other speaking course books in the
market) though how best to approach the teaching of oral skills has long been
the focus of methodological debate. Teachers and textbooks make use of a
variety of approaches, ranging from direct approaches focusing on specific
features of oral interaction (e.g. turn-taking, topic management, questioning
strategies ) to indirect approaches which create conditions for oral
interaction through group work, task work and other strategies (Richards 1990).
Advances in discourse analysis, conversational analysis, and corpus analysis in
recent years have revealed a great deal about the nature of spoken discourse
and how it differs from written discourse (McCarthy and Carter
1997). These differences reflect the different purposes for which spoken
and written language are used. Jones (1996,12) comments: In speaking and
listening we tend to be getting something done, exploring ideas, working out
some aspect of the world, or simply being together. In writing we may be
creating a record, committing events or moments to paper.
Research
has also thrown considerable light on the complexity of spoken interaction in
either a first or second language. Luoma (2004) for example, cites some of
the following features of spoken discourse:
•Composed
of idea units (conjoined short phrases and clauses)
•May
be planned (e.g. a lecture) or unplanned (e.g. a conversation)
•Employs
more vague or generic words than written language
•Employs
fixed phrases, fillers and hesitation markers
•Contains
slips and errors reflecting on-line processing
•Involved
reciprocity (i.e. interactions are jointly constructed)
•Shows
variation (e.g. between formal and casual speech), reflecting speaker roles,
speaking purpose, and the context
Functions
of speaking
Numerous
attempts have been made to classify the functions of speaking in human
interaction. Brown and Yule (1983) made a useful distinction between the
interactional functions of speaking (in which it serves to establish and
maintain social relations), and the transactional functions (which focus on the
exchange of information.
1. Talk
as interaction
This
refers to what we normally mean by “conversation” and describes interaction
which serves a primarily social function. When people meet, they exchange
greetings, engage in small talk and chit chat, recount recent experiences and
so on because they wish to be friendly and to establish a comfortable zone of
interaction with others. The focus is more on the speakers and how they
wish to present themselves to each other than on the message. Such
exchanges may be either casual or more formal depending on the circumstances
and their nature has been well described by Brown and Yule (1983). The main
features of talk as interaction can be summarized as follows:
•Has a primarily social
function
•Reflects role
relationships
•Reflects speaker's
identity
•May be formal or
casual
•Uses conversational
conventions
•Reflect degrees of
politeness
•Employs many generic words
•Uses conversational
register
•Is jointly constructed
Some of the skills
involved in using talk as interaction are:
•Opening and closing
conversations
•Choosing topics
•Making small-talk
•Recounting personal
incidents and experiences
•Turn-taking
•Using adjacency-pairs
•Interrupting
•Reacting to others
Mastering the art of
talk as interaction is difficult and may not be a priority for all
learners. However
[A1]
students who do need such skills and find them lacking report that they
sometimes feel awkward and at a loss for words when they find themselves in
situation that requires talk for interaction. They feel difficulty in
presenting a good image of themselves and sometimes avoid situations which call
for this kind of talk. This can be a disadvantage for some learners where the
ability to use talk for conversation can be important.
2. Talk
as transaction
This
type of talk refers to situations where the focus is on what is said or
done. The message is the central focus here and making oneself understood
clearly and accurately, rather than the participants and how they interact
socially with each other. In transactions,…. talk is associated with
other activities. For example, students
may be engaged in hand-on activities [e.g. in a science lesson] to explore
concepts associated with floating and sinking. In this type of spoken
language students and teachers usually focus on meaning or on talking their way
to understanding. Jones 1996, 14Burns distinguishes between two different types
of talk as transaction. One is situations where the focus is on giving and
receiving information and where the participants focus primarily on what is
said or achieved (e.g. asking someone for the time). Accuracy may not be a
priority as long as information is successfully communicated or understood. The
second type are transactions which focus on obtaining goods or services, such
as checking into a hotel.
Some
of the skills involved in using talk for transactions are:
•Explaining a need or
intention
•Describing something
•Asking questioning
•Confirming information
•Justifying an opinion
•Making suggestions
•Clarifying
understanding
•Making comparisons
•Agreeing and
disagreeing
3. Talk
as performance
The
third type of talk which can usefully be distinguished has been called talk as
performance. This refers to public talk, that is, talk which transmits
information before an audience such as morning talks, public announcements, and
speeches. Spoken texts of this kind according to Jones (1996,14),
…often have
identifiable generic structures and the language used is more predictable.
…Because of less
contextual support, the speaker must include all necessary information in the
text – hence the importance of topic as well as textual knowledge. And while [A2] meaning
is still important, there will be more emphasis on form and accuracy. Talk as
performance tends to be in the form of monolog rather than dialog, often
follows a recognizable format (e.g. a speech of welcome) and is closer to
written language than conversational language. Similarly it is often
evaluated according to its effectiveness or impact on the listener, something
which is unlikely to happen with talk as interaction or transaction.
The main features of talk as
performance are:
•There
is a focus on both message and audience
•It
reflects organization and sequencing
•Form
and accuracy is important
•Language
is more like written language
•It
is often monologist
Some of the skills involved in
using talk as performance are:
•Using
an appropriate format
•Presenting
information in an appropriate sequence
•Maintaining
audience engagement
•Using
correct pronunciation and grammar
•Creating
an effect on the audience
•Using
appropriate vocabulary
•Using
appropriate opening and closing
Implications
for teaching
Three
core issues need to be addressed in planning speaking activities for an oral
English course. The first is to determine what kinds of speaking skills
the course will focus on. Is it all three of the genres described above or
will some receive greater attention than others. Informal needs analysis
is the starting point here. Procedures for determining needs include
observation of learners carrying out different kinds of communicative tasks,
questionnaires, interviews, and diagnostic testing (e.g. Tsang and Wong
2002). The second issues is identifying teaching strategies to “teach” (i.e.
provide opportunities for learners to acquire) each kind of talk.
Talk
as interaction is perhaps the most difficult skill to teach since interactional
talk is a very complex as well as subtle phenomena that takes place under the
control of “unspoken” rules. In my experience these are best taught
thought providing examples embedded in naturalistic dialogs that can serve to
model features such as opening and closing conversations, making small talk,
recounting personal incidents and experiences, and reacting to what others
say. For example to practice reacting to what others say, students can be
given a dialog in which listener reactions such as “really”, “is that right”,
“wow”, “that's interesting” have been omitted. Students work in pairs to
add them to the dialog, practice the dialog with the reactions, then practice a
different dialog, this time adding their own reactions. Another technique
to practice using conversation starters and personal recounts involves giving
conversation starters which students have to respond to by asking one or two
follow- up questions. For example, “I didn't sleep very well last
night”. “Look what I bought on Sunday. How do you like it?” “Did that
thunderstorm last night wake you?”.
The
third issue involved in planning speaking activities is determining the
expected level of performance on a speaking task and the criteria that will be
used to assess student performance. For any activity we use in class,
whether it be one that seeks to develop proficiency in using talk as
interaction, transaction, or performance, we need to consider what successful
completion of the activity involves. Is accuracy of pronunciation and
grammar important? Is each participant expected to speak for about the
same amount of time? Is it acceptable if a speaker uses many long pauses
and repetitions? If a speaker's contribution to a discussion is off topic,
does it matter?
References
Brown, Gillian and
George Yule 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
Burns, Anne. 1998.
Teaching speaking . Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 102-
123.
Green, F, E.
Christopher and J.Lam. Developing discussion skills in the ESL classroom .
In Jack C Richards and
Willy Renandya (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching.
New York: Cambridge
University Press. 225-234
Jones, Pauline 1996.
Planning an oral language program . In Pauline Jones (ed).
Talking to Learn.
Melbourne: PETA 1996 12-26
Luoma, Sari 2004.
Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. and R.
Carter 1997. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language
Teaching. London:
Longman
Richards, Jack C. 1990.
Conversationally speaking: approaches to the teaching of
conversation . In Jack
C Richards. The Language Teaching Matrix. New York:
Cambridge University
Press. 67-85
Tsang, WK and M. Wong
2002. Conversational English: an interactive, collaborative
and reflective approach
. In Jack C Richards and Willy Rendandya (eds). Methodology
in Language Teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 212-224
http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/developing-classroom-speaking-activities.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment