The chapter is: Shekhtman et al (2002). Developing professional-level oral proficiency: The Shekhtman Method of Communicative Teaching. In Shekhtman and Leaver, Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency. Cambridge University Press, 2002. p.119~140.
Unfortunately, despite the cool title, the concepts are not completely clearly explained and definitely not supported with evidence except the writer's personal language teaching/learning experience and some rather iffy metaphors beaten to death over long paragraphs. That leaves me skeptical about their value.
Nevertheless, some ideas were new to me and possibly useful for advanced language learners.
In the SMCT, some cool-seeming professional speaking tactics (Communication Management Devices) are:
Answer Expansion: Talking a lot so that the native speaker you speak with won't get worried that you cannot communicate. Hmm...useful?
Use of Islands: Having little pre-practiced conversation tidbits you can spurt out effortlessly in order to rest your mind (because conversation in a foreign language is taxing, yes). Islands="Speeches in which the speaker sounds more effective and articulate than usual" as a result of repetition. OK, but how do you know what to practice in advance...little anecdotes you tell again and again like some grandpa??
Using Questions to Continue a Conversation: Speak -> end with a question back to your interlocutor. Very useful, obviously. I agree with the authors that learners need to practice taking control of the direction of a conversation by asking questions.
Adherence to the Known: Using simple, automatically usable grammar structures and phrases that one knows in the target language, rather than trying to make difficult un-automatic phrases by translating from L1 or trying to make something new. Basically, go with the simple structures and phrases you know. I agree...I think. But is it so simple?
Simplification: This seems similar to the above. Use simple structures because when you go for something complex or unmastered, you can "ruin your communication" as Shekhtman et al put it.
Acceptance of Mistakes: Don't try to correct yourself in mid-speech unless a breakdown of communication is occuring. Good advice!
Embellishment: Using "Oh, by the way, " "Right on!" "On one hand...on the other hand" "You bet!" and other common "natural discourse markers" of spoken discourse in order to make your speaking sound more lively and natural. Sure...why not? As long as you don't over-embellish your stories, I guess.
Complication: Using complex, sophisticated structures and expressions in meticulously pre-prepared, monologic discourse such as presentations, even if they are "non-automatic" and difficult to use. OK, I think this is useful--but a bit too obvious to call a tactic?
Shekhtman has a "dirty laundry" washing method where he takes the oral mistakes of his students, says them to them, and makes them say the correct "washed" version. Hmm...yeah...that could work, I guess if you have time to do that one-on-one in a drill fashion. That would not be very realistic in a classroom situation unless it is done with samples from all around the classroom and everyone tries to wash some phrases the teacher caught during the group work time or presentation time. It could also be seen as too much focus on errors...
2009年8月28日金曜日
2009年8月27日木曜日
Michael loves games (anything with points and winning)
I was talking with a friend about how I teach my son English and was explaining how important games are to Michael. He gets really worked up about winning and learns like crazy. Also, if I tell him the rule is "English only," he still follows it...mostly.
-Uno, great for strategy
-Crazy Faces, plays like crazy eights, kind of like Uno in a way
-Picturika, very nice vocabulary game, but not popular to Michael yet since there are no "points" to count
-Transformers Battle Card Game, which we play like "war" for now, playing 1~6 cards to compare who has more points in the hand. Very nice for addition practice. Mikey looooves addition and sits there adding up all the cards in his hand to imagine the ultimate high score attack.
-Battleship, which he cheats by looking...can't yet persuade him that we're suppose to play it by GUESSING where the ships are...
-Life, which he calls the money game, and loves in scary wealth greedy way, and
-Good ol' Scrabble, where I allow him to use any as many tiles as he wants to make as long of a word as he wants to get as many points as possible. With a dictionary, he comes up with words like Quixotic. He couldn't care less what it means.
-I'm hoping to get him initiated into Chess and Shogi soon. He'll be kicking my butt in a few months, but oh well.
Any suggestions for good non-digital games? Please leave a comment. We're trying to keep him away from Nintendo DS as long as we can, but I have a feeling that's going to start causing stress when he starts Japanese first grade next April. Unless we can really get him into analog games and suck in some of his friends...
2009年8月26日水曜日
My first Voice Thread post
This is my first experiment with creating a voice thread. So easy and functional! It was easy to upload the main photo (or video), add my video, audio, or text medium comment, get a response from my colleage Chris (thanks!) by sharing with email, and Embedding this in my blog was extremely easy with just one click.
Since this should be easy for students to use to post photos/videos to stimulate communication, I want to try using this for my college classes, possibly for getting students to state opinions about news images, share personal narratives, or upload and exchange comments on group presentations.
The main logistical difficulty seems to be to give students time in a computer lab with audio/video recording devices working. Our labs have mikes on the headsets, but no video, so comments will have to be text or audio unless students have their own cameras at home or can use personal cell phone video.
But it looks like I can only make three of these with the free account, so I may need to shell out 60 dollars per year to get enough capacity to run a class activity with it. To get around that, if students are just doing one or two creations, I can ask the students to make free acounts. That may be enough for a "try it out" type experiment just for fun.
2009年8月25日火曜日
How Different Are We? By H.G.FitzGerald (2003)
http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/htmy/1853596191.html
Most of the English classes I teach at my Japanese university only have Japanese students. The students have discussions with each other, and based on those interactions with each other (and the limited interaction they each get with me), are expected to develop their ability to eventually (hopefully) communicate cross-culturally in English with non-Japanese speakers of English.
Does it work? In other words, based on this limited foreign language learning context, plus possibly a summer of overseas study and some coincidental conversations with international students or faculty on campus, how well-prepared are my students for participating in advanced interactions in English with persons from other cultures? Of course, each of my students has different charactertistics as a language learner and will face different interactional demands in different contexts, so it may be difficult to generalize what "well-prepared" for "advanced interactions" means, but I still need to have some general sense of where they are in relation to where they need to be, and what is needed in order to help them move closer to where they want to be. Given that most students rarely have had a chance to converse with people of different cultures, one of the greatest challenges they may face is achieving successful communication by adapting to a wide variety of cultural differences and communication styles.
So that's why I was interested in this work by FitzGerald. What tendencies, successes or failures do Japanese speakers have when they interact in English with persons of other cultures, and what might we recommend in terms of preparing for more successful interaction?
In "How Different Are We?" FitzGerald's examination of 40 hours of spoken discourse involving 155 non-native speakers from 104 different countries and 6 native-speakers provides many valuable insights for what seems to "work" or "not work" for smooth communication in collaboration tasks between persons of different cultural backgrounds.
Some competencies recommended are: (p.173)
FitzGerald's view, based on the intercultural interaction data, was that the inductive style often led to interruptions and misunderstandings. In other words, when a speaker took a long time to get to a point, building up to it implicitly and indirectly, the communication became confusing and frustrating (even when the interactants were familiar with the different styles of communication).
I like the quote on p.109 because it confirms my own conclusion on organization style for English in intercultural contexts:
"(With indirect approaches) ...it is more difficult to work at inferring meaning in intercultural interactions and, in such communication, there is a preference for more explicit, direct verbal messages."
Some may criticize this view of a preferred direct style as ethnocentric and biased, possibly even imperialistic, and that may be true to some extent. With more exposure to indirect styles in the future, the international preference may change, or they may become equally effective. Even today, in some contexts, an inductive, indirect style may be more effective. However, given FitzGerald's data that indirectness tends to lead to confusion in intercultural interaction, and given a tendency among advanced English learners from many countries to learn the rhetorical style preferred by Anglophone countries, it seems most practical for learners to try to use a direct style if they want to achieve smoother communication.
However, it is important to remember that one size does not fit all. Just because "direct and explicit and deductive" seems to generally work more efficiently does not mean it is always the best way to go. Intercultural communicators need to be ready to adapt styles to the persons they communicate with.
FitzGerald's chart on p.168 can lead to stereotyping, and so I am not in favor of matching categories of styles to certain regions. The valuable part of identifying communication styles is that communicators can reflect on their own style and realize that their way may not be the only way.
Communication styles identified by FitzGerald based on her data and literature:
Most of the English classes I teach at my Japanese university only have Japanese students. The students have discussions with each other, and based on those interactions with each other (and the limited interaction they each get with me), are expected to develop their ability to eventually (hopefully) communicate cross-culturally in English with non-Japanese speakers of English.
Does it work? In other words, based on this limited foreign language learning context, plus possibly a summer of overseas study and some coincidental conversations with international students or faculty on campus, how well-prepared are my students for participating in advanced interactions in English with persons from other cultures? Of course, each of my students has different charactertistics as a language learner and will face different interactional demands in different contexts, so it may be difficult to generalize what "well-prepared" for "advanced interactions" means, but I still need to have some general sense of where they are in relation to where they need to be, and what is needed in order to help them move closer to where they want to be. Given that most students rarely have had a chance to converse with people of different cultures, one of the greatest challenges they may face is achieving successful communication by adapting to a wide variety of cultural differences and communication styles.
So that's why I was interested in this work by FitzGerald. What tendencies, successes or failures do Japanese speakers have when they interact in English with persons of other cultures, and what might we recommend in terms of preparing for more successful interaction?
In "How Different Are We?" FitzGerald's examination of 40 hours of spoken discourse involving 155 non-native speakers from 104 different countries and 6 native-speakers provides many valuable insights for what seems to "work" or "not work" for smooth communication in collaboration tasks between persons of different cultural backgrounds.
Some competencies recommended are: (p.173)
- bring out into the open any cultural differences you feel may be impeding understanding
- if there is a misunderstanding, rephrase. Do not repeat exactly
- clarify the intention behind your words, knowing others may not share your worldview
- expect other ways of structuring information and emphasizing a point
- use fillers to avoid pauses when you have not finished what you want to say (Apparently because different cultural norms of turn-taking can cause you to lose the floor if you pause too much. Sees true from my experience. This can be a big challenge for Japanese speakers who come from a culture where longer pauses are accepted and respected.)
- soften negative statements where culturally appropriate
- do not break up units of meaning with pauses (Because it is hard to follow?)
- Repeat difficult ideas using different words; Ask questions to confirm understanding of the listener
- Use introductory phrases "What I want to emphasize is..." to make the function of important utterances clear
- Give instructions or information in correct sequence without extraneous comment
FitzGerald's view, based on the intercultural interaction data, was that the inductive style often led to interruptions and misunderstandings. In other words, when a speaker took a long time to get to a point, building up to it implicitly and indirectly, the communication became confusing and frustrating (even when the interactants were familiar with the different styles of communication).
I like the quote on p.109 because it confirms my own conclusion on organization style for English in intercultural contexts:
"(With indirect approaches) ...it is more difficult to work at inferring meaning in intercultural interactions and, in such communication, there is a preference for more explicit, direct verbal messages."
Some may criticize this view of a preferred direct style as ethnocentric and biased, possibly even imperialistic, and that may be true to some extent. With more exposure to indirect styles in the future, the international preference may change, or they may become equally effective. Even today, in some contexts, an inductive, indirect style may be more effective. However, given FitzGerald's data that indirectness tends to lead to confusion in intercultural interaction, and given a tendency among advanced English learners from many countries to learn the rhetorical style preferred by Anglophone countries, it seems most practical for learners to try to use a direct style if they want to achieve smoother communication.
However, it is important to remember that one size does not fit all. Just because "direct and explicit and deductive" seems to generally work more efficiently does not mean it is always the best way to go. Intercultural communicators need to be ready to adapt styles to the persons they communicate with.
FitzGerald's chart on p.168 can lead to stereotyping, and so I am not in favor of matching categories of styles to certain regions. The valuable part of identifying communication styles is that communicators can reflect on their own style and realize that their way may not be the only way.
Communication styles identified by FitzGerald based on her data and literature:
- Instrumental/Exacting - Values individual autonomy. Linear, goal-oriented. Deductive, unemotional, objective, logical.
- Spontaneous/Argumentative - Values sincerity with blunt, direct style. Negative emotions are honestly expressed and not hidden. Arguments are forceful. Speak in length to say views in full to persuade the other side.
- Involved/Expressive - Warm, emotional, giving face to others, collaborative, enjoying the interaction, and sometimes like to digress from the goal on to tangents.
- Elaborate/Dramatic - Speaks take long turns to develop a dramatic, embellished story with metaphors, similes, rhythmic repetition and parallel structures. Positive, harmonious, but often full of sweeping assertions and overgeneralizations.
- Bureaucratic/Affective - Value harmonious relations and positive face. Stress form rather than content with formal bureaucratic language. Preference for inductive style of organization, including both sides of an issue.
- Succinct/Subdued - "These cultures value harmony, modesty and conformity and stress positive face, particulary position face. They express this by masking negative emotions and avoiding unpleasantness. Talk is status -oriented and should be deferential and indirect in many situations. People are expected to infer meanings. Turns are short and talk is concise except when an inductive organization of information and a conciliatory approach are used to avoid open disagreement. Talk and verbal skills are not highly valued: People are comfortable with silences."
2009年8月22日土曜日
2009年8月20日木曜日
Photos from Bangkok 8/7-9
The order of photos is not exactly chronological...a little poetic license here.
My research partner Kota and I, at a small temple near our hotel, praying for success on our presentation the next day.
Inside the temple, Thai people were chanting sutras after the monks for their evening prayers.
Being the dedicated language acquisition professionals we are, obviously the first stop on our free day after the conference had to be a one hour survival Thai language lesson for 500 bahts each. We spent about ten minutes just getting the angle of our hands and head correct for the Thai style greeting called the wai. Another killer driller was the 5 Thai tones. Our dedicated teacher refused to go on to the basic shopping phrases we needed until we could differentiate the minimal pairs for mid tone na (rice paddy) and rising-then-falling tone na (face). She was seriously concerned that we would risk deportation by going up to a Thai person hoping to say "I like your face" and instead insult the person by saying "I like your rice paddy." Fortunately our linguistic prowess allowed us to clear the hurdle and we were able to spend the last 5 minutes role-playing "How much?" "5 Baht" "That's a rip off!"
A few more photos...I'll try to write blurbs later.
My research partner Kota and I, at a small temple near our hotel, praying for success on our presentation the next day.
Inside the temple, Thai people were chanting sutras after the monks for their evening prayers.
Done! Celebrating a successfully delivered conference presentation with a cold Singha beer, one of many that night, on a deck overlooking the Chao Phraya River with Wat Arun in the back. Sorry, no photos of the conference...I'm sure there are plenty on the website if you have to see them.
Being the dedicated language acquisition professionals we are, obviously the first stop on our free day after the conference had to be a one hour survival Thai language lesson for 500 bahts each. We spent about ten minutes just getting the angle of our hands and head correct for the Thai style greeting called the wai. Another killer driller was the 5 Thai tones. Our dedicated teacher refused to go on to the basic shopping phrases we needed until we could differentiate the minimal pairs for mid tone na (rice paddy) and rising-then-falling tone na (face). She was seriously concerned that we would risk deportation by going up to a Thai person hoping to say "I like your face" and instead insult the person by saying "I like your rice paddy." Fortunately our linguistic prowess allowed us to clear the hurdle and we were able to spend the last 5 minutes role-playing "How much?" "5 Baht" "That's a rip off!"
Thus, we were ready to hit the town.
The best form of transportation in Bangkok is without doubt the tuk-tuk. As long as you can brave the exhaust fumes of the traffic around you, this open air taxi-bike is cheap and a lot of fun. Unlike taxis that take you for a ride to run up the meter, tuk-tuk fares are all decided by negotiation before getting in. Then the driver turns into a careening maniac to weave through traffic and alleyways to get you to your destination as quickly as possible.
Dinner at Songboon Sea Food. Wow! Strongly recommend the curry style crab. The shrimp were tasty too.
A few more photos...I'll try to write blurbs later.
登録:
投稿 (Atom)