ELE Saturday Seminar Series 2017-2018

Motivating your students to talk--exploring a content-based approach to teaching speaking

28.4.2018

Any volunteers?

Hello people!!!

AgendaPart One (by Jessica)

● The problem of reticence● How might content-based approach (CBLT)

help to reduce students’ reticence?● Common issues related to the use of CBLT

Agenda

Part Two (by Anisa) 10:45

● Discussion on sample speaking activities● Tips on designing and administering effective

speaking activities

Important announcement

Venue for the afternoon workshop → B1-LP-01

‘Sweet’ introduction

1. Choose 1 piece of candy but DON’T eat it yet.2. Each type of sweets represents one fact you

need to tell others about yourself.3. Take turns to introduce yourself, beginning

with your name and then one fact for the type of candy you have chosen.

Favourite leisure activity One memorable event

Favourite place on earth Wildcard

What are the most common challenges in the teaching of speaking?

https://www.mentimeter.com/public/577ff702fc04f86531d3fecf9163491a

The problem of reticence

● The state of ‘being hesitant and anxious about speaking in the target language’ (Bailey 2005, p.163)

● A common problem in HK classrooms (e.g. Tsui 1996; Liu & Littlewood 1997; Littlewood 2000; Lee & Ng 2009)

How reticence hinders oracy skills

According to Swain (1985)

● Fewer practice opportunities● Learners are less likely to notice the gap between

what they can say and what they intend to say● Less likely to challenge themselves and make

progress

Causes of reticence

According to teachers

➢ Students’ low proficiency

➢ Students’ fear of mistakes and peers’ derision

According to research

students’ fear can be teacher-induced.

Tsui (1996)

Discussion

1. Consider what is problematic in each of the following scenarios and explain your views to others.

2. Suggest how you might conduct your teaching differently if you were one of those teachers.

Scenario A

T: ‘Offered,’ that means…can you give me another word for ‘offered’? Another word?

S: Give.

T: Given, not give, because it’s passive voice…

Tsui (1996, p.151)

Scenario BT: Don’t just look at the books. Just think from your general knowledge. Can you think?

T: Timmy, can you hurry up? What are you doing?

T: Okay, Ryan? Hurry up. Think. Can you all write down. What are the effects? Write down. What did you say just now? Die. What else? Pardon? Louder please. Pricilla, can you say it louder? Louder, louder.

S: Skinny

T: Anything else? Affects, how does it affect you and your… (Tsui 1996, p.152)

Surprising contributing factors

Classroom practices that were found to incur learner’s anxiety (Tsui 1996):

● Teacher’s unrealistic expectations (e.g. high challenge without high support)

● Teachers’ intolerance of silence● Teachers’ incomprehensible input● Teachers’ uneven allocation of turns

Cultural practices and reticence

There is a relationship between reticence in classrooms of Chinese learners and Confucian values of ‘face’ and ‘silence’. (Liu 2002; Woodrow 2006; Karas 2016)

言多必失 小說話多做事 知者不言,言者不知

Why are Chinese speakers tend to be quieter and more passive in class?

I ne fu y ab b w a s

be t u t s .

I ne re c m e c an

p e r ha n .

I do ’t a t k a s u d e t .

‘Productive silence’ (Karas 2016)

● “‘If they present the same idea with mine, I pay attention to their errors’. By noting classmates’ errors, Eva was able to mentally correct her classmates’ mistakes….”

● “Eva noted that during new or unfamiliar topics, she preferred to wait for others to speak, ‘I will listen to what other people say and then I will present idea.’

Two types of anxious language learners (Woodrow 2006)

Skills Deficit Anxiety

“Whe I ta n n o c a s s a s n an ma re t i I w fe xi ec e I la p a t o s in .”

Information Retrieval Anxiety

“Whe I pe m e c an as m u t o m ac I us y e v an u . An he I sa f t o h s a d k so es so pi I al ve n o . I ca ’t e m an h I ju m ah...ah...ah.”

Strategies to reduce reticence

Emotional support

● Establish a supportive climate.

● Build good rapport with students.

● Regard for students’ perspectives, interests and needs.

A is for a_____, loving and kind.

N is for n_____, the taste of all that you bake.

I is for i_____, clever and bright.

S is for s_____, what you bring to my face.

A is for a_____, from head to toe!

A is for angel, loving and kind.

N is for nice, the taste of all that you bake.

I is for intelligent, clever and bright.

S is for smile, what you bring to my face.

A is for awesome, from head to toe!

Classroom organisation

● Establish classroom routines.● Use pair/ group work, not just

whole-class discussions.● Call on answers from small groups

after they have discussed among themselves.

Instructional support● Make language input comprehensible.● Use mainly meaning-focused activities. Make sure

form-focused activities are linked to language used in the meaning-focused activities.

● Provide scaffolding to students with ‘skill deficit anxiety’; teach relaxation technique to those with ‘information retrieval anxiety’.

Instructional support (cont.) Encourage/ expand language use by

● allow students to prepare for a topic in advance● lengthen wait time● modify questions● accept a variety of answers● allow students to formulate answers through writing

before offering them to the whole class(Tsui 1996; Woodrow 2006; Lightbown

2014)

Teacher interaction strategy

● Teacher-fronted strategy: results in a teacher-dominated IRF interaction pattern.

● Facilitator-oriented strategy: enables teachers to create ‘authentic’ dialogues with students.

● Learner-oriented strategy: results in interaction which is basically learner initiated. The teacher only intervene when learners come across difficulties.

❏ T: What’s this?❏ S: A tower.❏ T: Good, yes, a tower.

Interaction A

❏ T: How did you spend your holiday?❏ S1: Mm...bored...I sleep every day.❏ T: Oh, what a shame. Your holiday was boring. You slept

the whole day. Why didn’t you go out?❏ S1: No, no money.❏ T: Yeah.❏ S2: No. He had money.❏ S1: How you know I had money?

Interaction B

T: What’s this? (a display question→ T initiation)

S: A tower. (S response)

T: Good, yes, a tower. (Comment → T follow-up)

(Lee & Ng 2009)

Teacher-fronted strategy

❏ T: How did you spend your holiday? (a referential question→T initiation)

❏ S1: Mm...bored...I sleep every day. (S response)❏ T: Oh, what a shame. Your holiday was boring. You slept

the whole day. Why didn’t you go out? (Follow-up → show sympathy + recast to model correct expression)

❏ S1: No, no money. (S response)❏ T: Yeah. (backchannel to show understanding)❏ S2: No. He had money. (S self-selects)❏ S1: How you know I had money? (S response using the

correct past tense verb form)

Facilitator-oriented strategy

Discussion1. Are there any other causes of reticence in your own

experience? 2. What is the difference between reticence and

productive silence?3. Do you know any other strategies which can help

students overcome their reticence in terms of emotional support, classroom organisation and instructional support?

● What is CBLT? ● What is the rationale for

using CBLT? ● What are the concerns

teachers may have over the use of CBLT ?

???

What is a content-based approach (CBLT)?

CBLT is an approach which draws on the core principles of communicative language teaching (CLT), which emphasizes real communication and meaningful use of language.

CLT

TBLT CBLT

Definitions● CBI is ‘...the integration of particular content with

language teaching aims...the concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills’ (Brinton, Snow & Wesche 1989)

● CBI is aimed at ‘the development of use-oriented second and foreign language skills’ and is ‘distinguished by the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills’ (Wesche 1993)

How CBI is supported by major language learning theoriesComprehensible input hypothesis on SLA:

All language learning begins with exposure to ‘comprehensible input’. While a learner is paying attention to the meaning carried by the comprehensible input, they are incidentally learning elements of the language.

See Kasper (2000), Lightbown (2014) for more.

How CBI is supported by major language learning theoriesCognitive psychology on skill learning:

● Exposure to comprehensible input alone is NOT enough.● Three stages of learning a skill: noticing → sufficient

practice (in producing comprehensible output)→ fluency/ automaticity

● Feedback is necessary to push learners to achieve accuracy and appropriacy.

See Kasper (2000), Lightbown (2014) for more.

Premises for CBLT

● People learn a second language more successfully when they use the language as a means of acquiring information, rather than as an end to itself.

● CBI better reflects learners’ need for learning a second language.

Richard and Rodgers (2001)

Premises for a CBLT approach to speaking● When there is a greater focus on content, learners are distracted

from worries about making language errors and opportunities to develop fluency are maximised.

● Group work is often used in CBLT. Less confident learners are more willing to speak up after having a discussion in their own group.

● CBLT develops learners’ knowledge of the world and provides opportunities for obtaining, synthesizing and evaluating information from different resources, which can make students more independent and confident, helping them to break away from their traditional role as a passive recipient of knowledge.

CBLT as a continuum ‘Models of CBI differ….All share, however, a common point of departure--the integration of language teaching aims with subject matter instruction.’ (Snow 2001, p.303)

Content-driven

Language-driven

Total Immersionmodel

Adjunctmodel

Theme-basedmodel

Sheltered model

Language classes with frequent use of content

Content-driven or language-driven?● Content is taught in L2.● Content learning is the top

priority.● Language learning is secondary. ● Learning objectives determined

by content course goals or curriculum. Little accountability for language development.

● Student evaluated on content mastery.

● Content is used to learn L2.● Language learning is the top

priority.● Content learning is incidental.● Learning objectives determined by

L2 course goals or curriculum. Content is a vehicle for language development.

● Students evaluated on language skills / proficiency.

Examples of CBLT in HK

Learning English through rugby

NSS English Elective

Learning maths in an EMI school

Theme-based units in English textbooks

Concerns about using a CBLT approach1. Students may feel they aren't improving their language skills when

little attention is paid to the development of language skills and strategies.

2. Students feel overwhelmed by the cognitive demands coming from the content.

3. Students may use their mother tongue rather than the target language during collaborative work.

4. It is hard to find information sources that are pitched at the right level for the students.

Nation’s Four Strands (2007)Meaning-focused input Fluency development

Meaning-focused output Language-focused learning

Nation’s Four Strands (2007)Meaning-focused input Ss listen and read for meaning.

Fluency developmentSs speak and write for the purpose of conveying meaning.

Meaning-focused outputSs understand and produce language they already know but may not yet access automatically.

Language-focused learning Ss learn new language features or more accurate/ sophisticated use of those features + “learning to learn” strategies.

Nation’s Four Strands (2007)Meaning-focused inpute.g. read a chapter in a history textbook, watch a video about climate change

Fluency developmente.g. perform a skit based on a story read in a language arts lesson, carry out a survey for the social issue module

Meaning-focused outpute.g. report on the observations of a science experiment, do a “show-and-tell” activity

Language-focused learninge.g. learn verb forms in science report, break unknown words into parts

All four strands are essential for language acquisition.

Cummins’ framework (2000, p.68)

A C

B D

Cognitively undemanding

Cognitively demanding

Context embedded

Context reduced

Informal conversation

A lecture on relativity

Activity 1: Top Ten Hong Kong Dishes

Word SortPlace the following words into different categories based on their meanings.

sweet tender saltydeep-fried sour creamycrispy pan-fried bakedspicy steamed savourystir-fried crunchy chewy

Scan the QR code to do the word sort.

Scan this QR code

A Sample videohttps://spark.adobe.com/video/2Zz7GTPhP5vM2

https://spark.adobe.com/video/2Zz7GTPhP5vM2

Suggested structure Your ideas

Title

Name of dish

Type

Method of cooking

Taste and texture

Comment

My comments● A variety of scaffolding techniques are used to support

students in their presentation (e.g. brainstorming for prior knowing, vocabulary work, providing a model text with a suggested structure, a planning sheet).

● Spontaneous speaking may be challenging for young learners. Allowing students to formulate their ideas through writing, direct teaching of vocabulary needed for the task, and opportunities to redo their recording...all these give the learners a greater chance to experience success in speaking.

Activity 2: Logical Fallacieshttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Zs9zIKgHkxUga080QFpemaPyyzZBkODe

My comments● Learners will feel more confident when knowledge of debate is

made explicit to them.● Learners are allowed to initially focus on content, the task is

then followed by an activity with explicit attention to language.

● Discussing the terms in groups allows students to discuss in a low-risk environment as they have the safety and support of the group.

To sum up

● L2 learning itself is a stressful process and likely to generate much anxiety in the learners given the fact that they are required to perform in a language that they are still trying to master. This is especially true in the case of L2 listening and speaking (Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope 1986).

To sum up

● Acknowledging the effect of anxiety and creating a low-anxiety, supportive classroom are among the first steps to reduce reticence about speaking.

● CBLT can support both content and language learning. Linking explicit focus on language to the language used in meaning-focused activities adds to its effectiveness.

Thank youQ & A

References● Bailey, K. M. (2005). Practical English language teaching: speaking. New York : McGraw-Hill

ESL/ELT.● Brinton, D., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M. N. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston:

Heinle & Heinle Publishers.● Hedge, T. (2014). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ● Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. Modern

Language Journal, 70(2), 125.● Karas, M. (2016). Turn-taking and silent learning during open class discussions. ELT Journal, 71(1),

13-23.● Kasper, L. F. (2000). Content-based college ESL instruction. In L. F. Kasper (Ed.), Content-based

college ESL instruction (pp.3-25). Mahwah, New Jersey: LAwrence Erlbaum Associates.● Lee, W., & Ng, S. (2009). Reducing student reticence through teacher interaction strategy. ELT

Journal, 64(3), 302-313.● Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on Content-Based Language Teaching (Oxford Key Concepts for the

Language Classroom). Oxford University Press.● Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey?. ELT Journal: English

Language Teachers Journal, 54(1), 31-36.

● Liu, N., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse?. System, 25(3), 371-384.

● Liu, J. (2002). Negotiating Silence in American Classrooms: Three Chinese Cases. Language and Intercultural Communication, 2(1), 37-54.

● Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed., Cambridge language teaching library). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

● Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House.

● Tsui, A. M. B. (1996). Reticence and Anxiety about Second Language Learning. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom (pp.145-167). New York: Cambridge University Press.

● Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language. RELC Journal,37(3), 308-328.

● Wesche, M. B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.) Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study (pp.57-82). Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.