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’.

Context 3: within-student dialogue – student and text

In referring to ‘within-student’ dialogue, there is an acceptance of the validity of both Vygotsky’s conception of ‘inner speech’ and Bakhtin’s work on the heterogeneity of voices [24, 126]. Even educators little versed in either set of theories may grant that it is hardly controversial to assert that learners are often required to ‘engage’ with a text, or with some other external stimulus physically divorced from the teacher. This condition and the next relate to what Andrew Wilkinson referred to as A-A communication: ie the student talking to her/himself.

Perhaps because such internal dialogue cannot be overheard, its value is often overlooked in discussions about classroom discourse [26, 23]. Indirectly, such engagement is promoted through a variety of teaching strategies and measured, post hoc, through assessments of students’ written and other more public communications. Directly, such assessments often rely on a largely intuitive feeling about classroom ‘atmosphere’; about whether or not there is a ‘good air of

concentration’. We know little about the silent processes in which students engage

in given contexts, nor about between-student differences in relation to this, though taxonomies of higher-order reading skills (for example) do exist that might prove helpful in providing some kind of starting point in the development of analytical frameworks here. There is also very little research on how the quality of this form of dialogue is promoted through the use of other forms.

Context 4: within-student dialogue – reflection and problem solving

Similarly, while most teachers may wish their students to become reflective problem-solvers, little systematic work has been done on how to promote or evaluate this within the context of the lesson or wider teaching program. The work of Robert Fisher [5, 53] and of other proponents of ‘philosophy for children’, while generally respected, has had limited policy impact today.

The work of Richard Andrews and his colleagues on the nature of argument [12, 14] has similarly been little exploited so far, despite revealing significant gaps in awareness, even among able and advanced students. Teachers are often more aware that certain students are reflective and take initiative, without having much understanding of how or why. Similarly, we may be all too aware of the conscientious and successful student who plays no part at all in the spoken life of the classroom, yet whose levels of reflection and argumentation remain extremely high.

Cultural differences seem to be significant here, too. While the received wisdom of Western education is that verbal interchange promotes learning, there is

plenty of evidence from around the world that this assumption is by no means universally shared. The reflective condition of inner dialogue also deserves, therefore, to be valued for its contribution to learning, and the oscillation of inner

and outer speech can be promoted and utilized in a variety of ways that have not yet been clearly documented or evaluated [31, 18].

Identification of four discrete but potentially symbiotic general ‘conditions’ of classroom dialogue might form the first step in the formulation of guidelines for

effective teaching that fully acknowledge its essentially dialogic nature. However, such an identification would still fall short of an account of effective teaching on two fronts: it would not define quality, and it would not consider peculiarities of classroom, personal and social contexts [23, 148].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter II

Dialogues: the Presentation Stage

2.1. Presenting dialogues: basic approaches

One of teacher’s roles is to present new material: that is, to teach the meaning of new items which the learners will need in order to extend their mastery of the language. There are different ways of doing this – through texts, activities or situations – but, whatever approach you use, the procedures must be:

1. economical: because understanding is only part of the learning process and you must not spend too much time on this stage;
2. effective: otherwise the students will not understand what they are subsequently required to practice [8, 7].

Since many course books rely heavily on texts as the framework for presenting new items in combination with previously learned material, we will look at this approach first.

The main concern in the early stages of the language programme will almost certainly be the teaching of the spoken language and for a number of reasons dialogues would seem to be best suited to this purpose:

1. they present the spoken language directly in situations in which it is most commonly used;
2. they permit and encourage the learners to practice the language in the same way;
3. they encourage active participation in the lesson.

In contrast, prose passages (narrative, descriptive, informative) appear to have none of these obvious advantages. By way of compensation, however:

1. they can be used to introduce language items which do not fit naturally into conversational-type texts [7, 9];
2. they can provide material for learners to talk about: e.g. informative texts can be used to present  interesting and educationally valuable topics;
3. they offer variety.

They also provide incidental reading practice, which is now accepted as an important goal, even in the early stages of language course.

For these reasons, therefore, we can expect most course books to offer a judicious combination of both types of text. Teacher’s task is to make the best use of them according to the needs of the learners [15, 23].

These criteria are intended to help teacher evaluate the dialogues in his or her tuition. They may also serve as guidelines if we want to write supplementary material of your own.

1. The language should be relevant. That is, the main items (grammatical or functional) should be ones that will really help to build up the learners’ ability to communicate.
2. The language should be appropriate. That is, the language should use forms which are typical of the spoken language (e.g. contracted forms, short form answers, hesitation markers, etc.).
3. The situations should be realistic and relevant. That is, the dialogue should create the impression that the speakers are real people in the world, using language for a purpose, not simply exemplifying bits of language. The situations and characters must of course relate to the needs and age of the learners. Children and adolescents are more likely to be motivated by an ‘adventure’ – type situation, while adult learners are more likely to value ‘survival’ – type situations such as travel, shopping, looking for accommodation, etc.
4. The structural or functional items should be limited. The dialogue is not a suitable vehicle for teaching a lot of vocabulary. Additional items can be worked in at the practice stage [17, 152].
5. The dialogue should not be too long. A convenient length is about 8-10 exchanges (though obviously much will depend on the situation).
6. The dialogue should be interesting. The students are more likely to learn from a dialogue than some excitement or human interest in it. It is helpful too if the dialogue has some action in it, so that it can be dramatized, not simply said aloud [3, 68].

Although the dialogue is an effective device for contextualizing new items of language, especially if it is accompanied, at least in the early stages of the language program, by a visual sequence that illustrates the main events in the situation, it is unlikely that the students will understand it completely even after they have listened to it two or three times [6, 12]. A good deal of course depends on which new items are being introduced and how many, and how well the context helps to convey their meaning. Without some prior introduction to new language, most students are likely to have only a general idea of what the dialogue is about. While some teachers are satisfied with this on the grounds that meaning is best apprehended in terms of wholes, others think it is wasteful and would prefer their students to have a more complete understanding from the outset. Since, then, this is an area where there is some disagreement, we need to discuss two important problems [5, 14].

The first question is whether we should we ‘pre-teach’ new language in the text. That is, should we extract items (grammatical or lexical) from the text, teach their meaning (e.g. through translation or in situations and get the learners to practice this language) before we let them listen to the dialogue? The argument in favour of this is that, unless we do some pre-teaching of this kind, the students will not understand the dialogue. The argument against is that the students always end up by understanding; that they should be given the opportunity to guess the meaning of new language and that this in fact is one of the strategies they will need to acquire. It might also be argued that, at least of the early stages, the students will probably be mentally translating the dialogue as they are listening [14, 12].

It must be acknowledged that there are occasions when it helps to prepare the students for listening by pre-teaching an item which is likely to prevent them from understanding the dialogue as a whole. In practice, however, even near-beginner students accept a global approach which requires them to try to work out the meaning for themselves, especially if they know, because they are familiar with your procedures, that they will be given several opportunities to hear the dialogue; that they can use the visual sequence to help interpret the dialogue; that they will see the text in due course and, finally, that you will explain any difficulties which remain at the end. As a general rule, we should look at each dialogue on its own merits.

One more question that arises is whether we should translate the dialogue, in whole or in part, at any stage of the presentation.  Clearly it should not be necessary to translate the whole of the dialogue, or to get the students to translate it, as a way of making sure that they have understood it. Sometimes it may help to give the mother-tongue equivalent of an item (especially if the alternative is to try to teach its meaning through a procedure, such as demonstration, that would take up a lot of time) [18,103]. This may be necessary when you are clearing up any difficulties after the students have listened to the dialogue several times. Mostly, however, the mother tongue is likely to be needed, particularly in the early stages, to help set the context for the dialogue or to explain certain aspects of the situation, which in itself will help the learners to understand the dialogue better [15, 25].

Perhaps more important question which we need to concern ourselves with while working out procedures for presenting dialogues are:

1) How do we motivate the students to listen? Because, unless they listen, they will not learn anything. Ways of doing this are:

      (a) through discussion of the situation (together with related visual material) and by relating the situation to the learners themselves (their interests, environment etc.);

(b) through a pre-listening task which will involve them in the situation/topic on a personal level [26, 15].

2) How can we focus attention on key items in the dialogue? This can be done through ‘focus’ questions (which need not always be in the form of questions, of course) which will get the learners to listen out for specific bits of information in the dialogue. A task of this kind also helps to reassure the learners that they are achieving something positive, even if they do not fully understand the dialogue.

3) How can we use the dialogue to develop communicative skills? One important communicative skill that we should seek to develop is listening (and this is one important argument against pre-teaching). There will also be opportunities for talking and exchanging ideas about the situation. Finally, we must see to it that the dialogue leads on to the communicative use of the new language items [15, 24].

 

2.1.1 Ten steps of successful dialogue presentation

The following set of procedures outlines a workable approach to presenting dialogues in average classroom conditions. It need not of course be followed rigidly. Although there are certain things that the teacher will always need to do –

such as involving the students in the situation, providing reasons for listening, checking understanding (etc.) – he should look at each dialogue carefully to see what modification are needed.

Step 1. Establish the setting. We can do this with the help of the first picture. Point out or get the students to tell the teacher that the boy (Tim, with whom they are familiar) is showing something in a newspaper to his friends. There is going to be a carnival, with a talent competition and a prize of ₤100. We can explain or translate any of these items as necessary. The important thing then is to bring these ideas alive for the students e.g. by asking them what they know about carnivals (especially any famous ones), whether they have ever taken part in one (or in a talent competition) and whether they would like to. The tacher may have to use the mother tongue quite a lot at this point, but it is necessary to use English as much as possible because discussing topics like this often provides opportunities for exposing the learners to a good deal of informal language. 

Step 2. Establish a personal link with the situation. The teacher should elicit and list on the board some of the things we can do at a carnival. For example, you can sing, dance, play the guitar (and other musical instruments). This provides a way, in this case, of introducing can informally because we need it for an activity (so that in effect you are doing some pre-teaching). The teacher may ask the students to interview one another quickly about what things they can do. (This activity can be done in greater depth at the practice stage, bringing in more vocabulary.) We can also tell the students that there is going to be a class talent competition and get them to say what they can do.

Step 3. Pre-teach selected items (optional) Here we deal with any difficulties that might seriously interfere with overall understanding and enjoyment of the dialogue. Any such items in this dialogue have already been dealt with incidentally.

Step 4. Set a listening task Since singing is a key activity in the dialogue, a possible task is to ask the students to find out while they are listening who can sing, or who is going to sing at the carnival. The task can be presented in the form of a chart like the one below that has to be completed with yes or no.

	sing
Tony
Tim
Tina

 

Step 5. Ask the students to listen While they are doing this, they may follow the picture sequence but not look at the text. The teacher may let them listen to the dialogue as often as they like, and ask for the answers to the focus questions at any suitable point. Other questions can also be asked to see how much the students have understood so far. (They may also like to ask questions, too).

 Step 6. Ask the students to read silently as they listen During this phase, the teacher pauses after each section and ask some simple questions to check understanding. For example (after Section 1): Where is the talent competition? Is the Carnival today? Are there any prizes? What is the first prize? (etc.)

Step 7. Ask the students to listen and repeat The teacher asks the students to listen again (without looking at the text) and to repeat selected utterances either in chorus or individually. Most learners enjoy repeating in chorus.

Step 8. Explain any difficulties  We can do this by reading through the dialogue, drawing attention to any points (perhaps giving further examples of an item) or by asking the students to tell the teacher what difficulties they have.

Step 9. Ask the students to practice saying the dialogue Divide the learners into small groups for this. They should decide among themselves who will take which part. Carry out selective checking, but get the learners themselves to listen to and correct one another [15, 19].

Step 10.  Get the students to dramatize or improvise the dialogue. One or two groups can be asked to do this if there is time and if they want to [15, 25].

Ask pupils to look at the three short conversations. Discuss:

- in what situation each conversation might take place in real life;

- why the person might be asking the question.

A. Imagine you hear these conversations in real life. What might the situation be?

Why is the person asking these questions?

T: What is Hanna doing?

S: She is doing her homework.

T: Can you type letters?

S: Yes, I can.

T: What is there in the room?

S: There is a table and two chairs, and a single bed.

There are of course many possible answers; the teacher should encourage students to give as many ideas as they can:

   e.g.  – Father asking mother about daughter-he has just arrived home and she is not in the room, so he wonders where she is.

– A friend calling at Hanna‘s house and asking her mother – she wants to go out with her.

– Someone being interviewed for a job (e.g. as a secretary). The interviewer needs to know because the job involves typing.

– Someone enquiring about a room which they want to rent, or someone booking a room in a hotel; they want if it is suitable.

From the discussion, we establish these main points:

1. In all the conversations, the two people are genuinely exchanging information. There is something that one person does not know and wants to find out, and that is why he or she is asking a question. We can say that the person has a ‘communicative need’.

2. Although this is not the only reason why people communicate in real life, it is one of the main reasons; very often we talk in order to tell people things they do not know, or to find things out from other people.    

B. Now ask pupils to look at the picture of the room and to imagine that it is being used for language practice in class. Imagine students in a class are asking and answering questions about a picture. What might they say? Why are they asking these questions?

Teacher can discuss what questions students might ask and answer, e.g.:

What kind of room is it? (a bedroom)

Is there a cupboard in the room? (Yes, there is)

How many chairs are there? (two)

Where’s the desk? (by the window) etc.

   If we compare this activity with the conversations in part A,  it is possible to establish these points:

-  In part B, the students are asking and answering questions, but they are not genuinely exchanging information. They are not asking the questions in order to find out anything they need to know (for example, they do not really want to know how many chairs there are, because they can see that there are two). So they do not have any ‘communicative need’ [24, 159].

- The students are using similar language to the people in the ‘real life’ conversation, but the purpose of the questions is quite different- it is simply to practice language [17, 209].

Although activities like this provide useful language practice, they are often not very interesting, because there is no real purpose in asking the questions, nor any need to listen to the answers. The activity would become more interesting if we could create a reason for asking the questions. We can do this by hiding the information, either from all the students or from some students, so that there is something why can find out. This is sometimes called an ‘information gap’ – one person has information which another does not have, so there is a need to communicate. In practice the teacher will deal with three simple kinds of ‘information gap’ activity: guessing games, information gap exercises for pair work, and activities in which students exchange personal information.

1. Demonstrate a guessing game using a picture. Use the picture or any other fairly simple picture which shows people engaged in some activity (it could be a picture from a magazine or a drawing).

a) Tell the pupils that you have a picture (but do not show it to them). In the picture there are a man, a woman and a train. They must find out exactly what the picture looks like by asking questions. You can only answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’- but you can help them by giving hints (e.g. ’You still don’t know where the train is’).

b) When they have a clear idea of the picture, they should try to draw it.

c) Finally, show them the picture. After your demonstration, discuss the activity, and compare it with the way the picture was used in Activity I:

- Hiding the picture gives students a genuine reason to ask questions: there is information they need to find out. They also have to listen carefully to the answers, so that they can draw the picture.

- Although the activity as a whole is controlled by the teacher, the students are mainly asking questions that they want to ask, not ones the teacher tell them to ask.     

2. Ask one teacher from each group to come out in turn and play the game, using the other teachers as a class.

3. If there is time, tell teachers briefly about other guessing games, and ask them to describe any they know themselves.

Some games which are widely used in English language classes:

-Famous people: One student pretends to be a famous person (alive or dead) who is known to the others. They (a try to guess who the person is, by asking questions, e.g.: