Teaching Dialogical Speech at Different Levels of Language Acquisition

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching Dialogical Speech at Different Levels of Language Acquisition

 

 

 

2010

 

Content

Introduction

Chapter I. Dialogic Teaching: Alternative Pedagogy for a Changing World

1. The notion of dialogue as a part of communication process
2. Contexts of dialogue for effective teaching

Chapter II. Dialogues: the Presentation Stage

2.1. Presenting dialogues: basic approaches

2.1.1 Ten steps of successful dialogue presentation

2.1.2 Role cards and cue-cards

2.1.3 Pictures as a visual stimuli of dialogical speech: advantages and      disadvantages

 Chapter III. Teaching Dialogical Speech: Elementary to Advanced Levels

3.1. Elementary level

3.2. Pre-intermediate level

3.3. Intermediate level

3.4. Upper-intermediate level

3.5. Advanced level

Conclusion

References

Resume

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inroduction

Language came into life as a mean of communication. It exists and is alive only through speech. When we speak about teaching a foreign language, we first of all have in mind teaching it as a mean of communication. Studies of classroom communication indicate that certain patterns of interaction sa dialogical speech.

The theme of this paper “Teaching dialogical speech at different levels of language acquisition” was chosen not by chance. In the teaching – learning process we faced the problem that the students do not have enough skill in dialogical speech.When we say a person knows a language we first of all mean he understands the language spoken and can speak it himself. In teaching a foreign language it is necessary to think about what motivates pupils to speak.

Speaking is a complex task that requires processing at many different levels more or less simultaneously. Because of its productive characteristics, speaking in English language involves the development of a particular communicative skill which, in turn, differs from reading and writing skills.

Dialogical speech in the classroom should be always stimulated and encouraged. Sometimes during the lessons the  students try to develop communicative skills through the exercises directed to memorizing and grinding the words, paradigms and grammar rules but they also should pay attention to training the components of communication, not only by translating some speech patterns from one language to another.

Communication activities give students practice in using the language under controlled conditions. These activities develop fluency. To help students to speak on different topics, teachers may give them topical patterns if it is necessary, so all the students can be involved into conversation, especially in mixed ability groups. Then they can transfer the patterns on their topics.

The problems of meaningful speaking are in asking for information, breaking in, presenting the information in order to define the main problem, expressing negative attitude politely, saying tactfully, changing the subject, guessing, expressing arguments, etc.

Dialogues play an increasingly important role for a myriad of language teachers especially in the presentation stage of the lesson. When viewed through teaching materials, it can be said that they are an ideal way of bringing external situations into the classroom and demonstrating the use of the new structure in natural context. Put another way, it certainly offers a milieu where most of the intended teaching points can be practiced without making the lessons boring but more enjoyable. In this respect, it can be added that the use of them in the classroom adequately helps the learners grasp the target language more efficiently due to the natural, meaningful contexts they provide with new structures and vocabulary.   

In a word, while working on dialogues in the classroom we automatically create an opportunity for learners to practice language in terms of its pronunciation, stress, intonation, pitch etc. Their listening comprehension skills also develop and they learn new vocabulary in the social contexts. Moreover, culture of the target language is presented via the various discourses within dialogues.

One of the reasons for using dialogues, most probably the underlying purpose, is to enable learners to promote their communicative competence through which they can get the ability to be able to use the target language appropriately. The other factors could be to stress on the language items such as vocabulary, structure, pronunciation and culture.

This research paper aims at presenting some key points in teaching dialogues at different levels of language acquisition.

The subject of this work is the study of the formation of  dialogical speech habits (pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar) with the proposed exercises for different age levels.

The object of the research is dialogical speech as an integral part of language teaching.

The main methods of research are comparative, descriptive and componential.

The novelty of the investigation is the suggestion of new interesting ideas of practical exercises (board games, guided dialogues, lexis games).

Practical value of this paper is determined by the fact that the developed material and proper tasks and exercises make available the use of this piece of work as a manual in teaching a foreign language at classroom or as a given homework, or as a useful material for elective additional courses of foreign language at school.

One of the most attractive features of this paper is the fact that it provides a range of interesting, very helpful ideas, suggestions, ready to use by any teacher.

The paper is organised into introduction, three chapters that cover many diverse areas of teaching dialogical speech, conclusion, list of references and resume.

The first chapter, entitled “Dialogic teaching: alternative pedagogy for a changing world”, explains the notion of dialogue as a part of communication process which promote high-level thinking and intellectual development through their capacity to involve teachers and learners in joint acts of meaning-making and knowledge construction and contexts of dialogue for effective teaching.

“Dialogues: the presentation stage” – this is the next chapter, in which we explain basic approaches of dialogues’ presentation, using different pictures, role cards, cue cards, their advantages and disadvantages. We should keep in mind that dialogues are useful source of materials to present the functional language and students mostly enjoy working on them when they are presented appropriately. We can either teach new vocabulary or make stress on the pronunciation or focus on a language item with the help of dialogues regardless of learner’s ages and levels. To get learners’ attraction and teach the target point, here are some general principles that we can implement in the classroom. Teachers can adapt and change these steps depending on the levels of learners and their intentions, etc. 

In the third chapter “Teaching dialogical speech: elementary to advanced levels” there are given the characteristic features of  all age groups and practical exercises and helpful ides for teaching students at each of these levels in developing  dialogical speaking skills.

To sum up, as dialogue is one of the teaching activities taking part in language teaching, we need to know how to handle them skillfully keeping in mind that an authentic dialogue always brings external situation into the classroom along with the new structure and vocabulary inherent in.  In teaching setting not only are students needed to be active, but teachers need to bring their creativity to the fore as well. They should be able to create a relaxing and attractive teaching atmosphere by means of the audio-visual materials, and students should be encouraged to get involved in this process enriched with teaching activities such as reading aloud, role-play, acting out, repetition, substitution drills, pair work, group work, reconstruction of the words or sentences, question and answer, problem solving, continuing the dialogue, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I

Dialogic Teaching: Alternative Pedagogy for a Changing World

1. The notion of dialogue as a part of communication process

Many people regard language as a neutral conduit of meanings; for others language is constitutive of the meanings communicated. These alternative perspectives are relevant to understandings of knowledge as fixed and knowable or emergent and fluid, and are central to debates about the purpose and role of education in societies today.

Of equal significance is the Bakhtinian notion that all language, whether written down or spoken, carries evaluative overtones. Words are imbued with the histories of their use and the values and assumptions of the individuals who produce them. In this way, as Daniels emphasizes in his recent work on activity theory, social-cultural and historical values and priorities find expression in the discourses mediating classroom interactions [2, 220].

When pupils are encouraged to reason and argue about ideas they are being invited to adopt the habits of critical inquiry that test existing orthodoxies and challenge the natural order of things. They might ask: What constitutes knowledge? How is knowledge organized, interpreted and communicated? Who owns knowledge? Whose ideas are salient?

Such questions pose dilemmas for all those involved in education in a fast-paced technological world where the World Wide Web is widely regarded as an important and easily accessible source of global information. In addition internet networks and knowledge communication forums, such as Wikipedia, allow pupils to construct and exchange knowledge in new and original ways and often outside traditional school boundaries.[8, 150 ]

The dilemmas for teachers are heightened by a growing body of research to show that children learn more effectively, and intellectual achievements are higher, when they are actively engaged in pedagogic activity, through discussion, dialogue and argumentation [12, 100]. Thus, equipping children with the skills and habits of mind required for living in the 21^st century and beyond is a risky and challenging business for educators but one that cannot be easily ignored. Children need to develop the critical reasoning and inquiry skills that will enable them to participate effectively and safely in the wider communicative practices to which they have increasing access.

According to Daniels [36, 2] teachers’ and students’ actions are linked to socio-cultural and historical contexts through spoken language and other semiotic mechanisms. This proposition is supported by evidence from observations of classroom interactions in England and in France, India, Russia and the United States. Through comparative analysis of classroom discourse in these five countries, Alexander identifies five categories of talk observed in use:

• rote: the drilling of facts, ideas and routines through constant repetition;
• recitation: the accumulation of knowledge and understanding through questions designed to test or stimulate recall of what has been previously encountered, or to cue pupils to work out the answer from clues provided in the question;
• instruction/exposition: telling the pupil what to do, and/or imparting information and/or explaining facts, principles or procedures
• discussion: the exchange of ideas with a view to sharing information and solving problems
• dialogue: achieving common understanding through structured, cumulative questioning and discussion which guide and prompt, reduce choices, minimize risk and error, and expedite ‘handover’ of concepts and principles.

Of these different forms of talk dialogue is singled out for its cognitive potential. In dialogic interactions, children are exposed to alternative perspectives and required to engage with another person’s point of view in ways that challenge and deepen their own conceptual understandings. It is the element of ‘dialectic’, understood as logical and rational argument, which distinguishes dialogue from mainstream oral or ‘interactive’ teaching as currently understood by many teachers [33, 9].

As for term the dialogic it is often sourced to Vygotsky, his approach to psychology was actually grounded in Hegelian/Marxian dialectics [15, 26]. This is a philosophical stance in which individual development and human society advance through the progression of rational argument in which thesis and antithesis are integrated into increasingly complex syntheses leading to some version of a rational, unified society. This contrasts with a Bakhtinian understanding of human learning and development for which dialogue holds the key [28, 36].

Russian philosopher, Mikhail Bakhtin conceptualized language not as a means of labeling objective, external realities but as a resource to be drawn on by social actors. Knowledge of who is speaking and the circumstances of the speech event (the sphere of activity, participants and tone and intonation of speech) are essential for any real understanding of the meanings exchanged in everyday life [16, 215].

From a Bakhtinian perspective, dialogue is not merely a term for describing the structure of speech in discourse: it is a phenomenon that penetrates the very structure of words themselves [27, 63]. The many different meanings that words express are shaped in the dialogic interaction with ‘alien’ words at the moment of utterance. Speakers’ utterances, orientated towards the active responsive understanding of others, are selectively appropriated and assimilated into new concept systems. It follows then that every word written or spoken is filled with the voices of others and ‘there is no ‘overcoming’ or ’synthesis” [5, 110]. Dialogue is not simply a precondition for learning but essential for knowledge construction and human development generally.

 

1.2. Contexts of dialogue for effective teaching

It has been argued that any sustainable definition of effective teaching should acknowledge outcome measures – in terms of learning results that cannot apparently be interpreted – and the development of creative individuals, capable of working flexibly alongside others. Unfortunately, most existing definitions strongly valorise one of these two criteria over the other. Most existing conceptions of Added Value in relation to schooling tend to focus principally on improvement in examination results, while critical theorists such as Young take no account whatsoever of such measurable outcomes. In both cases, a limited view of teaching is presented.

One well-respected view of quality in teaching that does acknowledge both

elements is that of Edwards and Mercer, who regard effective teaching as aiming for cognitive socialization, undertaken via language [2, 129]. This view acknowledges the work of the Vygotsky school, Wittgensteinian language games and the importance of seeing schoolwork in the context of broader interaction [6, 13]. The model has informed many pieces of later work, much of it by the two originators, yet has not effectively been superseded. Indeed, if anything, its emphasis on the distinctive nature of discourse in each curriculum area has become increasingly recognized during the last 15 years.

What has been added to the canon during this period is a much better comparative understanding, relating classroom discourse events in Britain to those

in other parts of the world. Robin Alexander [26, 15], in the most comprehensive of such studies, shows how national and regional contexts impact on classroom dialogue, with a much greater emphasis in France than in England on ‘les disciplines’ at primary level, and a much greater preponderance of informal teacher-pupil talk in England and the USA than in France, India or Russia         [30, 23]. As Westgate and Hughes [34, 5] acknowledge, there remain no firm criteria for assessing quality in classroom (or other forms of teacher-learner) talk. However, Edwards and Mercer continue to provide a useful basis for the development of such criteria, despite the intercultural differences noted by Alexander and others  [9, 38].

There is a significant gap in research knowledge, however, between the conceptualization of teaching as (something like) cognitive socialization through language, and understanding how patterns of classroom discourse build towards conceptual understanding and, by extension, psychological change. Alexander

[14, 108 ] offers tantalizing leads here but does not pursue this line in any great depth. Edwards and Mercer’s advocacy of the development of common knowledge within

shared contextual assumptions is far from comprehensive in this respect [17, 39].

Bearing in mind that contextual assumptions can, at best, be only partly shared – so that the same classroom interchange can never mean quite the same for

any two people or at any two different moments – it may be impossible to move to

any greater level of specificity in terms of prescribing good practice in the sense of ‘practice that can be copied’. However, it is at least possible to identify the various

kinds of contexts in which classroom dialogue occurs, as a precursor to investigating what seem to be, or have been, rich learning experiences in the classroom. This is addressed under the following four headings [22, 56].

Context 1: teacher-student/teacher-class dialogue

Much of the earliest work on classroom interaction has a strong focus on the

teacher-student/teacher-class condition. Edwards and Mercer [21, 25] present key findings from this set of studies. They particularly draw our attention to the effects

of asymmetrical power relations on classroom discourse in schools, whereby most

teacher-pupil interactions are controlled, typically following a pattern often defined

as an Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) or Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF).

This pattern tends to dominate teacher-student interaction even when teachers espouse non-didactic models, and seems to be an inevitable result of the institutional constraints of schooling, which require teachers to control, as well as teach, large numbers of potentially disruptive pupils. More recent work confirms this general pattern, showing that classrooms are still dominated by teacher talk, which is itself dominated by teacher control of questioning – though there is now stronger evidence of intercultural variation than previously [23, 183].

Such research has failed to convince British policy makers that whole-class

teaching is of limited value, to the extent that it is given prominence (albeit in conjunction with collaborative group work, and not merely as ‘transmission’) in the British government’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999) [4, 140]. Perhaps such skepticism towards research is not without justification, as there may well be compensating factors that researchers have not considered. In this case, the evident success of whole-class teaching methods in other countries was not so assiduously studied for a considerable period by researchers in the West and Australasia, for example. Also, the various and skilful ways in which some teachers use even the limited IRE or IRF pattern is arguably still not fully recognized, while the UK’s National Oracy Strategy paid scant attention to whole-class teaching [1, 23].

Nevertheless, research does serve to develop a body of understanding that can inform, if never fully prescribe, future practice. In this case, the research has repeatedly revealed similar patterns of interaction, with various interpretations of what constitutes good practice espoused in relation to these: for example, good teachers build on ‘Common Knowledge’ between themselves and their students, and focus on principled rather than procedural knowledge [35, 1]; good teachers tell stories and find alternative methods, thus reducing their reliance on questioning; and good teachers give clear instructions, set appropriate tasks, keep good classroom order and so on.

On the other hand, social and cultural differences determine that students will respond differentially to the same teaching approaches [36, 4]. This implies a relationship between teacher-class/teacher-student talk and student identity development, though few research studies have considered this explicitly. Nevertheless, there is at least plenty of material to draw upon to begin more sophisticated investigation into this first context for classroom dialogue.

Context 2: between-student dialogue

A common response to the findings concerning the teacher-centeredness of much classroom practice has been to promote increased collaborative work among

students. While some of this work has been in part politically motivated, a strong

corpus seeks to determine the cognitive (as opposed to the purely social) benefits of forms of collaborative pupil talk [11, 201]. Despite occasional naivety both in the interpretation and the implementation of such work, considerable progress has been made in this field; recent studies systematically evaluated teaching approaches based, at least in part, on the results of earlier work, and claimed evidence for more than short-term effects [7, 25].

While an openness has to be preserved about what constitutes effective learning in small-group contexts, where negotiation rather than completion of the task can become paramount – and while considerable difficulties therefore remain with the formal assessment of collaborative work – we are now moving towards a much more explicit understanding of the kinds of discursive activity students engage in under this condition of dialogue [29, 52].

However, beyond a vague exhortation towards ‘balance’ or ‘mixed methods’, research evidence remains limited on how whole-class and small-group teaching interact, or on how (to focus on the student) issues of personal identity are

negotiated in the semi-public arena of the collaborative work group vis-à-vis the rather more public arena of the ‘whole class’.