Job Discussion Forums

[leeroy]

So, a hypothetical situation...

A Pre-Intermediate class are set a task, whereby in groups of 5 they must evaluate the pros and cons of 4 potential mayoral candidates, then reach a decision together about who is the best one...

No grammar, vocabulary or phonology is covered either before, during, or after the task. All the teacher does is sit and wonder about what he's going to post on Dave's later...

Are tasks like these any good? Well, there's the

Positive Opinion:

Activities like this give the students the chance to communicate freely, without the hindrance of using a specific (and imposed) language point or structure. They must argue, reason, debate and conclude together - producing language as an immediate response to a communicative situation rather than a rote "say the sentence to check we got the grammar right".

Yes, this is not a replacement to "studying" language more formally - rather it is a complement to it. It gives the students the chance to practice the English they have learnt in a more natural communicative situation - but there is no obligation to. The kind of language produced in such a task may not be very accurate or fluent - but it is not the end result that is important - it is the process. They are formulating language in their minds, activating their passive language and building confidence as communcators. But, there is the

Negative Opinion

Activities like this are useless. 5 low-level students all chatting together is nothing more than a complete and relentless consolodation of error. They can make mistakes, listen to other people make mistakes, and have incredible exposure to equally terrible pronunciation and language use. Communication in the classroom must be guided - to simply say "choose the best candidate" doesn't focus the students on any linguistic area, and "practice" does not automatically equate to "improvement".

Students don't learn as much from each other as we would like. Most would rather talk/listen to their teacher than another foreigner - and even if the students enjoy a task such as this, any communicative improvement made will be minimal. "Natural language practice" is not for the classroom, especially for students living in London. If they want to have a chat, go to the pub. If they want to learn English - come to school.

Of course, there should be the

Moderate View
Tasks like this are fine (where the objective is not a linguistic one), but a little language focus (be it lexis, grammar, phonology, or whatever) either before, during, or after the task would be welcome too. The only issue here is that by focusing on a language area before the task, the students may see the task as nothing more than "an exercise in practising what the teacher just told us". The authenticity of the task may become compromised.

Similarly, a language focus during the task could also distract the students from achieving the actual goal (choosing a mayor) - and point them towards introspectively examining the language rather than simply and unselfconsciously using it. The "point" of the task will have been lost.

A language focus post-task can be a bit like a death-sentence pardon a couple of minutes too late - the students have already finished!

So, what do you people think? Is the task described effective, or complete rubbish?

[Wolf]

For my Japan teaching experiences, I would dump that task into the "negative" category. I might have been able to get away with communicative activities had I more control over the lesson, and taught students willing to really try to learn.

For my China experiences, this goes into the moderate category. I give my students group communicative activities to do quite often (at least one per class.) And then I watch them like a hawk to make sure that they do the activity in English (and provide help.) I teach the class from beginning to end, and have near-complete say in what goes on in class during the semester (I didn't have this in Japan.) I told them from day 1 that having them speak would be a very high priority, and I stuck with it.

That sounds like an activity I might do later in the term. After the students had had a chance to pracitce, say, likes and dislikes, comparing and "superlativing ", and describing people. The students would be free to say what they wanted, but I'd have my bases covered in that at least they knew enough to say something.

Also, I think that how the information of the candidates is presented could be another activity/learning opportunity. Do the students read about them from a handout or book? Listen to campaign speeches? Watch commercials? Listen to someone read about them. I'd make sure that the students understood the information about the candidates to some degree before I send them off to discuss them. (I've had too many discussion activities fizzle out because my students didn't understand the material.)

Oh, and I wouldn't use this activity at all in either country.

In Japan I don't think I ever had a student who was interested in (domestic) politics.

In China . . . um . . . elections . . . none . . . kinda . . . dangerous . . . lesson.

[leeroy]

Yes Wolf, the students understood the material having listened to and read the information (and being checked on it). I'm fairly sure none are that interested in local politics - but they seemed to enjoy the task regardless.

I hear you about the Chinese/Japanese students not being suited to such an activity, but they are the majority in this class and actually got quite into it - there were sufficient numbers of misc. "other" nationalities in the groups, though.

Does simply speaking in English (in an activity such as this example) cause students' communicative competence to improve? Or does there have to be a language focus in there somewhere?

[guest of Japan]

In my humble opinion I find this to be a fantastic activity if the students have the capabilities to carry it to conclusion. In an ESL classroom it might be a waste of time, but in and EFL classroom this is precisely the skill we are trying to foster.

[Glenski]

It's rubbish unless the students have the vocabulary or grammar focus to execute it.

If you have several candidates' background or description, and you want students to use comparatives or superlatives, that's ok. At pre-intermediate, that's about all it's worth unless you give them some other type of adjectives that don't require comparatives.

[denise]

I think "rubbish" is a bit harsh... Still, I would try to connect such an activity to a "real world" event--e.g., after their hypothetical discussion, get them to turn to national/international politics. (As others have pointed out, the students here aren't terribly interested, though...)

As far as students consolidating errors, I have tried recently to get my students to listen critically to each other. Hasn't worked, unfortunately... (either the students don't hear what I consider to be simple mistakes, such as "he go," or they don't want to correct their classmates), but what I've done is put them into groups, have half the group discuss a topic, and have the other half analyze the language--the pronunciation, grammar, vocab, etc. Ideally, they are supposed to highlight/question anything new or possibly incorrect. What ends up happening, though, is I go from group to group, take some notes, and share them with the whole class at the end.

d

[shenyanggerry]

I haven't tried that particular exercise with my Ss but would be willing to try. My biggest problem was to keep them talking in English. I soon figured out that if their lips moved too fast, they were speaking Chinese.

I didn't try to teach additional vocabulary except as a necessary adjunct to an activity. They had been taught a lot of vocabulary and grammar. They couldn't communicate with it. I concentrated on using English as a tool to exchange information. It worked. By term end there was a noticable increase in fluency - for those who chose to attend class.

My classes were broken into fifty minute periods. I tried to have at least one small group activity per period that took up at least fifty percent of the time.

[Sherri]

I like the activity and would do one like it in my class. My problem is with this statement:

" All the teacher does is sit and wonder about what he's going to post on Dave's later... "

I know you were just joking here, right leeroy? My point is, the teacher's role is so important during this kind of task work. I think there should be goals somewhere in this activity. Tell the students you are looking for fluency, looking for turn-taking, question formation, vocab usage--anything that is related to what you have been doing with them. As the students work, the teacher should be listening, taking notes on what is being said, perhaps recording, perhaps diagramming the discussion--it all depends on the type of feedback you intend to give.

A little rant: One of my pet peeves is teachers who set up lengthy discussion, simulation or task-type activities without giving any feedback to the students after they are done. Just an "OK, well done, that was great. See you next week"

[Lynn]

I've done the same activity. In one they had to chose their next ESL teacher, and there was a list of 6 candidates. The other was they had to eleminate some of the survivors from on island.

It worked well for us, but I agree with Sherri that feedback in neccesary. I did this activity when I first started teaching ESL in New York. My wrap up of this activity was poor.

[leeroy]

Naturally, I agree Sherri that feedback is a big plus in activities such as this. But just suppose there isn't any - and all the students are doing is discussing something. Is that the least bit beneficial?

[Celeste]

One of the problems with an activity like this with my Japanese students is that they spend 50% of the allotted time with noses firmly in dictionaries looking up difficult words that they will never remember after the end of this activity. I find interview or guided conversation activities a lot more useful. I like the "Conversation Question Cards" on www.eslpartyland.com and books such as "talk your head off".

[fat_chris]

[Wolf]

[Sherri]

leeroy wrote:
Naturally, I agree Sherri that feedback is a big plus in activities such as this. But just suppose there isn't any - and all the students are doing is discussing something. Is that the least bit beneficial?

Isn't that a bit like wondering if a tree falling makes any noise if there is no one to hear it? If there is no feedback, then why is the teacher even there? Why don't the students just go to the pub and talk about what they want to not something the teacher has imposed (evaluate the pros and cons of 4 potential mayoral candidates, then reach a decision together about who is the best one... ) Why bother imposing a topic and discussion structure and then not even listen or give your insight as to how the students handled the discussion?

I suppose some of the students might get something from it, maybe all, maybe none. It never hurts to practice the language. Isn't that what we all tell them to do outside of class?

My own opinion? The teacher is not doing his job and the students are wasting valuable time in the classroom that could be better spent in the pub talking about stuff they really care about.

[struelle]