Teaching speaking in groups
К содержанию номера журнала: Вестник КАСУ №2 - 2008
Автор: Осколкова А. А.
INTRODUCTION
Why is speaking
still so important to be taught? What is a group work? Why is it preferable,
advantageous for the work in class?
I will try to answer these
very questions in my article by giving also several examples from my school
practice.
The main aim of my
work is to give a short general analysis of the group work procedure.
The objectives are:
1.
to compare the most
important advantages and disadvantages of the group work;
2.
to find out the way
when it is useful to divide a class into groups;
3.
to observe the students
behavior (activity, English skills, etc.) during their work in groups;
I consider the group work to
be one of the most helpful and significant activities in the teaching and
learning processes. I agree that the group work is not new nowadays, but in
every theme or subject one can find and learn something interesting and unknown
before. Even the most boring and difficult theme may become worth researching
and analyzing.
Speaking takes the most part
of our life. We speak when we want to communicate, talk to the very person,
hold a speech, express emotions or just to chat.
Here are some definitions of
the term «speaking». Speaking
is:
- a productive skill (oral text);
- the center of communication basic skills;
- a very specific skill that doesn’t have
pre/while/post-stages…
The purposes of speaking are
to give/get the information, to share feelings, emotions, ideas, to pass the
time, to chat, etc.
The main functions of
speaking are:
1.
interactional
(communication for social purposes: greetings, compliments, jokes, casual
chart…);
2.
transactional (the aim
is to get/give/share the information: stories, instructions, lectures, etc.).
The active practice in
speaking the target language is essential for faster progress. In the classroom
speaking can cover a wide range of oral activities, from genuine interaction to
repetition drills.
Group work is a cooperative
activity. The group seems to be a natural framework for the way the ideas are
worked with in the real world. Cooperation is a much better tool than
competition.
Students learn from one
another, practice oral fluency. It’s much easier for the shy students to
express themselves in front of a small group than a whole class. The teacher
can work with individual students. It’s more likely to lead to negotiation of
meaning than interaction with a teacher. Group work frees the teacher from
her/his usual role of instructor-corrector-controller.
1. Speaking well in groups
Listening and reading are
useful sources of experience, but active practice in and feedback on speaking
and writing the target language is essential for faster progress. In the
classroom, speaking can cover a wide range of oral activities, from genuine
interaction (i.e. actually talking to somebody about something) to repetition
drills.
The idea of group work is not
new, of course. The usual reasons given for using it are that simultaneous
group work maximizes each learner’s opportunity to speak and that practicing in
a small group reduces the psychological burden of public performance. Some
findings from classroom research can be added to those arguments:
1.
Learners rarely pick up
each other’s errors even in the short term[1];
2.
Learners express a
wider range of language functions in group work[2];
3.
In group work on
reading and listening comprehension learners give fuller answers than in whole
class work with a teacher[3];
4.
Group work is more
likely to lead to negotiation of meaning than interaction with a teacher[4];
The negotiation tasks need to
be introduced with care. The tasks supposed to be cooperative can slip into
confrontation and competition, with one partner trying to dominate the other.
There can be a possible conflict between the teacher’s purpose and the effect
on learners.
One way to set up the right
expectations is to present and discuss examples of interaction between native
and non-native speakers to demonstrate the value of repair and negotiation.
This can help make learners’ feedback seem a natural and necessary part of
face-to-face communication, rather than as a personal attack on them by other
students.
When setting up group work,
one of the teacher’s important decisions is who to work with whom. The greater
the differences between the learners, the greater the natural need for negotiation[5].
The learners in any class are
likely to vary in proficiency, and it should be possible to form groups of
relatively «unequal» partners. In a multilingual class it makes sense for
people with different first languages and different levels to work together.
A higher level learner may
not want to work with a weaker partner, but there are advantages for both
partners in a mixed-level pair: the more proficient learner gets practice in
producing comprehensible output, the weaker partner gains experience in
negotiating meaning[6].
A second important influence
on learners negotiation is whether each individual learner has to contribute
for the task to succeed. Since each member of the group gets a sentence known
only to them, the successful solution to the problem depends on everyone
sharing that information with their partners.
Implicit negative feedback
such as a request for clarification can be a more effective teaching device
than explicit correction. By indicating a problem, but not immediately providing
the solution, teachers may do more to facilitate learners’ progress.
Among the usual reasons for
getting learners to take on the role of corrector and adviser are:
1.
It increases the
learners’ speaking opportunities;
2.
It develops a conscious
focus on language form;
3.
It encourages them to
express their own judgements on language points;
4.
It is an
acknowledgement that different individuals know more about specific areas than
others;
5.
It provides an
opportunity for real communication
Some learners resent being corrected
by other members of the group. Few learners feel that they have earned the
right to correct others.
There are various ways of
grouping learners in the classroom. Long and Porter[7] report that small group interaction allows
more talk for each of the students, and a greater variety of talk.
Small groups provide greater
intensity of involvement so that the quality of language practice is increased
and the opportunities for feedback and monitoring also, given adequate guidance
and preparation by the teacher. The stress which accompanies «public»
performance in the class should be reduced. Experience also suggests that
placing students in small groups assists individualization, for each group,
being limited by its’ own capacities, determines its’ own appropriate level of
working more precisely than a class working in lock-step with its’ larger
numbers.
Group work cannot be without
its’ problems.
Don’t students get out of
control? Don’t they tend to lapse into their native language when not under the
teacher’s eye? Isn’t the organization into groups time-consuming, noisy or
disruptive? What do you do with the students who won’t take part? Or with group
that finishes too early? How does the teacher draw the session to a close? And
so on. These questions have to do partly with that nebulous quality called
«discipline», partly with practical organization. As regards discipline: this
basically depends on the personality of the teacher, her class and the
relationship between them, not of the type of the activity. On the whole it’s
safe to say that a class which is controlled in frontal work will be controlled
also in groups. Thoughtful and efficient organization can, however, contribute
a good deal to solving the problems enumerated above.
Many classes are simply not
used to working in groups and many even express a preference for the familiar
teacher-fronted process. Although the group is a place for growth and practice,
it can also easily become a hidey-hole for the student who somehow assumes that
the group’s progress is automatically his/her own progress.
As with «separate table»
seating, students may not like the people they are grouped with. In any one
group one student may dominate while the others stay silent. In difficult
classes, group work may encourage students to be more disruptive than they
would be in a whole class setting and especially in a class where students
share the same first language, they may revert to their first language rather
than English, when teacher is not working with them. It may therefore take some
patience, consistent effort, and careful training to form effective group work.
2. Training for group work
Students need to learn how
to work in group settings. They need to recognize the right of everyone to
speak. They need to learn not to monopolize the group, and how to encourage the
reticent and shy ones to speak. They need to practice specific group tasks, and
to listen carefully to classmates. They need to learn how to present the
group’s efforts to the entire class and how to contribute to the collective
group accomplishment.
Group work is best used when
it is not the only classroom interaction pattern, but when it is combined with
many other strategies. Indeed, the large multilevel class works better when we
provide a great deal of variety. We can plan our lessons to include
teacher-fronted work, individual work and pair work as well as group work. If
we plan correctly, our lessons will become an interesting balance between
controlled practice in pairs, free practice in groups and individual
performance through mingling strategies.
3. Deciding of the size of the group
There is no ideal size for a
cooperative learning group. The right size depends on each lesson’s objectives,
students’ ages and experience working in teams, the available curriculum
materials and equipment and the time limits for the lesson. While cooperative
learning groups typically range in size from two to four, the basic rule of
thumb is «The smaller the better».
1.
As the size of the
group increases, the range of abilities, expertise and skills and the number of
minds available for acquiring and processing information increase, as does the
diversity of viewpoints. With the addition of each group member, the resources
to help the group succeed increase.
2.
The larger the group,
the more skillful group members must be at providing everyone a chance to
speak, coordinating group members actions, reaching a consensus, ensuring
explanation and elaboration of the material being learned, keeping all members
on task, and maintaining good working relationships.
3.
As group size
increases, there is a decrease in face-to-face interaction among teammates and
a reduced sense of intimacy. What results are often a less cohesive group and
lower individual responsibility to contribute to the success of the group?
4.
The shorter the period
of time available, the smaller the learning group should be. If there is only a
brief period of time available for a lesson, pairs will be most effective
because they take less time to get organized, operate more quickly, and provide
more «air time» for each member.
5.
The smaller the group,
the easier is to identify any difficulties students might have working
together. Leadership struggles, unresolved conflicts among group members,
issues over power and control, and other problems sometimes associated with
students working together are more visible and more easily fixed in small
groups.
4. Group behaviour
Whether you work
with one student or with five, you are a group. Only when you work
independently are you alone. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) suggested five stages in
group behavior.
1. Forming-As the group forms, the students expect
the tutor to take the lead in planning lessons, setting goals, and setting up
rules for the group.
2. Storming-As individuals within the group grow more
independent, there might be resistance to the tutor taking total leadership.
They may question the value of some of the techniques and materials. This
indicates growth and shows that it’s time for students to assume more responsibilities.
3. Norming-As a group works closely together, a sense
of cooperation and a greater sense of unity usually develop. Individual
personalities emerge, and decision-making by the students becomes more evident.
They become less dependent for the tutor for guidance.
4. Performing-Lessons have become more relaxed, with
tutors and students accepting each other, working together and taking
responsibility for decision-making. There is a sense of accomplishment and
satisfaction as skills of speaking, listening and understanding, reading and
writing are integrated into meaningful tasks.
5. Adjourning-Eventually the tutoring must end.
Adjourning shouldn’t be done abruptly. Time should be allowed for affirmations,
for sadness at parting and for closure. Perhaps a final celebration session can
be planned, where certificates are given or students share their best work over
the year. Perhaps the students will want to plan a final meeting over lunch or
coffee. Parting will be easier for the students if they know they can continue
to call their tutor and each other for help or encouragement, or just to keep
in touch.
These stages are only a model. Although actual group dynamics are
usually more complex than the model suggests, the stages sensitize us to the
ideal of a group’s evolution, which can help guide the teacher’s work.
[1] Porter
1986, «How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in task-centered
discussions», in Day (ed.) 200-222;
[2] Long M.,
L. Adams, M. Maclean and F. Castanos, 1976 «Doing things with words: verbal
interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations» in J. Fanselow
and R. Crymes (eds.) : on TESOL’76 Washington D.C., pp. 137- 563;
[3] Rulon
K., and J. McCreary, 1986. «Negotiation of content: teacher- fronted and
small group interaction» in Day (ed.), 182-199;
[4] Doughty
C. And T. Pica, 1986 «Information gap tasks: do thy facilitate second language
acquisition?» TESOL Quarterly 20/2: 305-325;
[5] Varonis.
E, and S. Gass, 1985. «Non-native-Non-native conversation: a model for negotiation
of meaning». Applied Linguistics 6/1: 71-90;
[6] Porter
1986, «How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in task-centered
discussions», in Day (ed.) 200-222;
[7] «Group
work interlanguage talk and second language acquisition», Working Papers 4/1,
1985, 103-137;
К содержанию номера журнала: Вестник КАСУ №2 - 2008
|