Teaching Conversation Strategies Through Pair-Taping
Nancy Washburn & Kiel Christianson
Introduction
When native speakers and non-native speakers hold conversations they must generally work together to avoid and overcome communication breakdowns. The strategies and tactics which they use include selecting salient topics, checking comprehension, requesting clarification, repeating utterances, stressing key words, and switching topics (Ellis, 1985). Research shows that the skills involved in negotiating to avoid and repair breakdowns are important for ESL/EFL learners to have. Pica states, "To engage in the kind of interaction believed to activate the acquisition process, classroom activities must be structured to provide a context whereby learners not only talk to their interlocutors, but negotiate meaning with them as well" (quoted by Browne, 1993, p. 40). Ellis points out that a one to one native speaker to non- native speaker linguistic environment is superior to the one to many environment of the classroom in providing opportunities for negotiated interaction.
Practically, however, few classrooms can provide individual learners with enough (or any) negotiated interaction with native speakers. For most classroom teachers, developing activities which promote negotiated interaction between learners is the most realistic and effective choice. At the Center for Language Research at the University of Aizu, we have developed a technique which results in original conversations between false beginner/low intermediate learners. This technique encourages learners to use strategies for avoiding and repairing breakdowns and requires them to take initiative and accept responsibility (and credit) for their success. This technique involves the taping of conversations held by pairs of learners in our language laboratory, but it could be transferred successfully to many classroom environments.
Overview
One of the challenges of teaching conversation strategies is to present learners with the authentic need to use them in the classroom. Another is to monitor and provide feedback to learners in large classes. We find that our pair taping technique meets these challenges. A third challenge is the reluctance of our learners to commit their imperfect conversations to audio tape. Initially, learners will pause the tape recorder whenever they run into problems and resolve the misunderstanding in Japanese, thus avoiding the need to "spoil" their tape by negotiating in English. We found that we needed to give legitimacy to the negotiation process and to communicate our acceptance of the quality of English conversations which learners at their level are able to hold. We do this by presenting the conversation strategies via audio and video tapes of natural conversations held by sophomores and more advanced freshman. The videotaped conversations are planned in advance by the participants for the inclusion of certain strategies, but they are unscripted. The audio tapes are taken from those made in class by former and current students. These tapes are very efficient in communicating the task and in reassuring our learners that they can succeed in meeting expectations. Then the class, working in pairs or groups of three, hold original conversations and tape them. Learners make a lot of mistakes while having these conversations, creating an authentic need to use the strategies they have just studied. Teachers monitor the appropriate use of strategies by listening to the tapes and writing tape evaluations.
There is growing evidence that such conversations between learners can be productive. Clennell (1994), in his observations of classrooms, noticed "an extraordinary change in the learners` behavior...when the teacher moved away" from groups of students having a conversation. He saw a marked increase in fluency, improvisation, and creative use of words (p. 32). Schneider (1993, 1994) has found a higher level of achievement in terms of fluency and listening comprehension test scores among his students who have chosen to do pair- taping over attending traditional class sessions. Ernst (1994) has also found student-generated conversation in "Talking Circles" effective in teaching conversation strategies, grammar, and English sociolinguistic norms. Skeptics of such a straightforward approach raise legitimate concerns. Students might give each other "faulty" input. Students might have the same conversation over and over again. Students might rely solely on communication strategies which they already know or which are inappropriate. Students might avoid ESP content in their conversations. With these concerns in mind, we have built in some safeguards against the pitfalls of student-generated communication. Moreover, our use of the students` own production to introduce conversation strategies gives them a much-needed boost of self-confidence and lends legitimacy to the process of negotiating meaning with which learners must become comfortable.
The first objection above, that of students teaching students incorrectly, is based on the assumption that learning is simply the transfer of information from someone who is more knowledgeable to someone who is less knowledgeable; however, Glachan and Light state "interaction between inferior strategies can lead to superior strategies, or in other words, two wrongs can make a right" (1982, p. 258, as quoted in van Lier, 1994, p. 8). In many thousands of minutes of "What`s New?" tapes, we have found just one instance of a student correcting another student incorrectly, and he was not believed. We feel that the benefits for acquisition of two inferior strategies negotiating to find a superior one outweigh the possible drawbacks from learners conversing freely with each other.