Improvisation and Creativity in EFL Classroom Discourse

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Today I finished reading From Corpus to Classroom. Language Use and Language Teaching (O’Keefe, McCarthy & Carter 2007). In my view, this is a well-written and in many ways thought-provoking book that provides a wide-ranging (largely introductory) overview of corpus-based research and its implications for foreign language learning and teaching. Since I am particularly interested in the role of improvisation and creativity in EFL classroom discourse (see Kurtz (2001) as well as the TEFLSPEAK-G series of posts on this blog), I found the following passage most interesting:

“There is a long way to go in understanding creativity in the spoken language and in exploring the applications to the classroom of such understandings, but the first steps have been taken in recognising that it has been generally underplayed within the language teaching classroom. It is something that we need to work on to bring the best out of us as learners, teachers and collaborators in the language classroom. It is a fundamental aspect of a more humanistic approach to language teaching. And it is the kind of evidence supplied by corpora of spoken language that enable these first steps to be taken.” (O’Keefe, McCarthy & Carter 2007: 197).

However, I did not find any references to research findings not published in English in this book. The more I read, the more I  became aware (once again) of the dominance of the English language in academic communication – which raises a number of fundamental questions (see, for instance, Gnutzmann 2006).

References

Gnutzmann, Claus (2006). Fighting or fostering the dominance of English in academic communication?” Fachsprache, 2006 (28), 195-207.

Kurtz, Jürgen (2001). Improvisierendes Sprechen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung spontansprachlicher Handlungskompetenz in der Zielsprache. Tübingen: Narr.

O’Keefe, Anne; McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald (2007). From Corpus to Classroom. Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (10)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

As described in the preceding posts, task-based improvisational enactments consist of scripted and unscripted communicative sequences: a) an opening part which functions as a scripted lead-in intended to ‘break the ice’ and to reduce speaking inhibitions, b) an unscripted middle part leaving enough space for a wide range of spontaneous ideas and interpretations, topics and improvised peer-to-peer exchanges, and c) a scripted final-part with which the improvised dialogue can be brought to an end once the participants feel that they cannot or do not want to go any further (in order to avoid embarrassment and speaking anxiety resulting from possible communicative breakdowns; this is the so-called ‘communicative emergency exit’ which is usually missing in traditional role-plays and simulations).

Each enactment is followed by teacher-guided or teacher-supported whole-class reflection. Here, the focus is not primarily on communicative problems and linguistic deficits, but on communicative success and on expanding the learners’ participatory repertoire in the target language. Explicit error correction is, of course, not neglected, but it is integrated in a way that is not threatening to the learners’ willingness to speak English. This then serves as a basis for subsequent enactments becoming increasingly more elaborate and flexible in terms of spontaneous target language use, as a number of classroom studies and scientific publications show (see, for instance, Kurtz 2001; Siebold 2004a (with DVD-/ROM video sequences), 2004b, 2006; Rossa 2007). From the teacher’s perspective, parts a) and c), i.e. the scripted communicative frame, can be and should be prepared in advance, whereas part b), the improvisational part in the middle, is unpredictable and emerges on the spot in the classroom. It is this part which requires teachers to distance themselves from what Sawyer has appositely referred to as educational “script-think” (2001: 36).

In this way, improvisation tasks seek to bring together two basic facets of authentic, natural, everyday communication in the EFL classroom: a) the predictability of socio-communicative scripts and behavioral patterns (unwritten scripts, socio-functional routines or event schemata) and b), the unpredictability of spontaneous ideas and topical shifts within a given socio-communicative framework.

All in all, improvisations are designed to bridge the (in some respects) artificial gap between acquisition and learning, direct and indirect, implicit and explicit foreign language instruction in secondary school EFL environments by providing a situated communicative infrastructure for classroom talk-in-interaction that is flexible enough to allow for systematic teacher-led instruction, mediation or support (scaffolding) as well as for more self-regulated, student-centered discovery learning, experimental target language use and, ultimately, the gradual emergence of communicative competence and performance in action-oriented, meaningful and challenging scenarios (see my previous post on Handlungsorientierung, i.e. on action-based / action-oriented foreign language learning and teaching on this blog).

For further illustration, here is another transcript of an improvisational enactment (9th grade learners of English at a secondary comprehensive school in Germany). Learners are sitting in a circle. (T = teacher; L = learner).

[...]
T: Ok, let me throw the dice now. Oops, that was an accident .. em .. I can’t see it from here. It’s behind that chair now. Yvonne .. Can you help? Can you see it?
L₁₃: Yes .. em .. it’s fifteen.
T: Right .. thank you .. Who has got fifteen? Mario? Good .. Let’s give Mario a nice round of applause… Come on everybody… Clap your hands! … Applause … Yvonne, why don’t you throw the dice now?
L₁₃: Me? Do I really have to, Herr Schneider?
T: Where’s the problem? Come on … go ahead.
L₁₃: OK. Six.
T: Who has got six? Dennis? Fine, now we can begin.
Ls: … Applause …
T: Oh yes. Sorry … right .. let’s .. em… let’s clap our hands for Dennis and .. em .. Mario. Mario and Dennis … Are you ready? .. OK, quiet please … go ahead.
L₆: Em … Just a moment please. We must find out who begins first. .. 15 seconds. We are ready .. we meet us in a youth club, OK?
T: OK you two .. so you’re in a youth club now … go ahead. And the others .. listen please!

Scripted part of the exchange, the lead-in (on OHT):
L₁₅: “Hi [Dennis]!”
L₆: “[Mario!] What a surprise! I didn’t expect to see you here today.”
L₁₅: “Well, after last night I just had to come.”
L₆: “Why?”

Unscripted, improvised, spontaneously created, and as such unpredictable part of the exchange:
L₁₅: Well I don’t know .. em .. how I can tell you this .. em .. Meike was in the ‘Sound Garden’ (a local disco) yesterday.
L₆: Meike?
L₁₅: Yes, Meike .. you remember? Your girl-friend.
L₆: Em .. But I don’t have a girl-friend.
L₁₅: Never mind, now you have one and her name is Meike.
L₆: OK OK .. 5 seconds.. Meike .. em .. my new girl-friend. .. 10 seconds… alone. Em … Was she alone in the ‘Sound Garden’?
L₁₅: At first.
L_6: And later?
L₁₅: Later she wasn’t alone. (Outburst of laughter in class).
L₆: Yes … I understand .. em .. but what did you saw? What was she doing? Tell me.
L₁₅: Em .. well .. em .. I saw her .. em .. with Christian .. em .. and he kissed her.
L_6: HE? (pointing at the ‘real’ Christian in the classroom)
L₁₅: Yes … he.
L₆: So YOU kiss MY girl-friend? (addressing Christian to include him in the improvisation)
L₃: No, it wasn’t me, wirklich nicht [German] (honestly).

Scripted / ‘emergency’ exit (on OHT):
L15: “Well .. I can see you want to be left alone. I think I better go now.”
L6: “OK .. thanks for letting me know.”
L15: “See you then .. [take care].”
L6: “Bye.”
Ls: …. Applause …
[...]

Follow-up / classroom discussion:
T: Now before we listen to Mario and Dennis again… before we listen .. em .. to the cassette .. let me first ask you what you think about their .. em .. conversation .. 3 seconds .. Let’s collect … yes … let’s collect your first impressions .. 10 seconds .. Yes, Simone?
L₁: I think it was very funny.
T: Oh really? Can you say why?
L₁: Because Dennis play so cool .. em .. when he was angry about Christian .. em .. after Christian have kissed his girl-friend Meike.
T: Mmh .. OK.. what about the others? What do YOU think of the conversation?
L₁₃: Dennis was good but Mario not.
T: Mario wasn’t? Why not?
L₁₃: Because Mario is the best friend of Dennis .. em .. so he .. em .. I think he… em .. he must not tell Dennis about Christian and Meike.
T: You mean he shouldn’t have told him?
L₁₃: Yes .. it’s not fair. He is not a reporter.
Ls: … mumbling …
T: OK .. calm down please. We can’t go on if you all speak at the same time. Isabell .. you wanted to say something?
L₇: Hey, hör doch mal auf [German] (stop that) Tim. I want to say something!
T: Tim! Come on! Stop teasing her!
L₇: I think Mario and Dennis are good friends .. and good friends have no .. äh .. Geheimnisse [German]?
T: Secrets. (writes it on the board).
L₇: Yes .. and Mario wouldn’t be .. ehrlich [German]?
T: Honest.
L₇: Mario… he .. he wouldn’t be .. What was the word?
T: Honest. (writes it on the board)
L₇: He wouldn’t be honest if he doesn’t tell his best friend.
T: So you think that friends should always be honest to each other?
L₇: Yes.
T: Mmh .. in Isa’s opinion honesty … Ehrlichkeit .. honesty (writes it on the board) is very important .. you should always be honest to your friends .. do you all agree? .. No? … 3 seconds … Who doesn’t?
[...]

This was followed by a brief ‘focus on form‘-sequence which culminated in a contextualized target language exercise, based on L7: He wouldn’t be honest if he doesn’t tell his best friend. After that, a new improvisation sequence was initiated.

Kurtz, Jürgen (2001). Improvisierendes Sprechen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.

Rossa, Henning (2007). Improvisationen als interaktive Lernarrangements: Anwendung eines Konzepts zur Förderung spontansprachlicher Handlungskompetenz in der Zielsprache Englisch dargestellt auf der Grundlage eigener Unterrichtserfahrungen in einem Grundkurs der Jahrgangsstufe 11 des Gymnasiums. (2. Staatsarbeit). Available online, click to read here

Sawyer, R. Keith (2001). Creating Conversations. Improvisation in Everyday Discourse. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2001.

Siebold, Jörg (Hrsg.) (2004a). Let’s Talk: Lehrtechniken. Vom gebundenen zum freien Sprechen. Berlin: Cornelsen. [mit DVD-Videodokumentation].

Siebold, Jörg (2004b), “Interaktion und Sprachproduktion in improvisierten Schülergesprächen.” In: Deringer, Ludwig (Hrsg.). Innovative Fremdsprachendidaktik. Kolloquium zu Ehren von Wolfgang Butzkamm. Aachen British and American Studies. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 149-166.

Siebold, Jörg (2006), “Unter der Lupe: Improvisierte Gespräche in einer 6. Realschulklasse.” In: Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht, 4, 27-32.

More to come. Stay tuned.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (9)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Why is improvised speaking important and valuable? How can it be incorporated into foreign language classroom practice in a systematic way? Focusing on English language teaching, Davies & Pearse (2000: 82-84) point out that in order to “develop the ability to participate effectively in interactions outside the classroom”, learners need to be accustomed to “combining listening and speaking in real time”, because “in natural listening-speaking situations the listeners must be able to handle [..] shifts of topic and unpredictable language in listening, and then they must be able to improvise their responses.”

In The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (Carter & Nunan 2001), Bygate (2001: 18) underlines the importance of improvisation as well, emphasizing that “improvised speech needs practice, but around some content familiarity.”

Lack of familiarity with content is of course not the only barrier to unscripted, increasingly self-regulated improvised speaking, i.e. to developing learners’ target language participatory abilities in secondary school foreign language classrooms. There is rather a whole range of potential barriers that may impede the development of spontaneous and flexible target language production in institutional settings, for instance:

• lack of creativity, flexibility and balance in the overall instructional design (focus on form versus focus on meaning; language as system versus language in use; scripted versus unscripted teaching; whole class, teacher-led discourse versus small-group, learner-led discourse; planned (largely predictable) versus unplanned (incidental, spontaneous, largely unpredictable) interaction in the target language;

• overaccomodation of teacher talk (TEFLSPEAK) combined with a forced immediacy of learner contributions in traditional IRF-sequences; textbook dependency and overuse / misuse; one-sidedness of error-treatment (because learners are viewed as deficient, and not primarily as successful communicators);

• thematic content failing to attract learners’ communicative interests (why should foreign language learners say anything, if there is nothing interesting to talk about from their perspective?);

• high level of speaking anxiety in the classroom; lack of learners’ self-confidence; lack of social cohesion inhibiting target language negotiation of meaning and lively peer-to-peer interaction;

• overemphasis of traditional PPP (presentation – practice – production) procedures; reduction of learners’ production to a disadvantageous minimum;

• overadjustment of target language production activities to test requirements and standardized test items (i.e. teaching to the test); lack of distinction between language learning versus language assessment activities and tasks – which, in my view, is a shortcoming in current empirical SLA research as well, resulting in serious problems concerning the ecological validity of some of the findings);

• uncontrolled use of the mother tongue, especially in learner-led, small group activities (see Butzkamm’s comment and his recommendations on this blog).

The “cultivation of the speaking skill”, as Rivers (1968/81: 94) put it forty years ago, takes time and patience. Next to and in combination with intercultural learning in institutional contexts, it is probably the most difficult challenge foreign language teachers are faced with in the Internet Age. Remembering what Rivers (1968/81: 246) wrote about this important aspect of learning is by no means anachronistic or inconsistent with modern foreign language education in the 21st century:

“The flowering of natural language use will come in its own time; it cannot be forced. When students begin to interact naturally, if only for a few minutes, we must be quick to recognize the change and let the natural interaction take over until its energy is spent. Being able to withdraw and leave students space and room to take over and learn through their own activity is the mark of the real teacher.”

However, qualitative research on improvised speaking indicates that EFL teachers can do a lot more to encourage learners actively to speak freely. Improvisational enactments can help to foster flexible target language production beyond incidental classroom speaking, if they are integrated into (well-balanced) classroom practice as early as possible and, above all, on a regular basis.

Bygate, Martin (2001), “Speaking.” In: Carter, Ronald & Nunan, David (2001). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14-20.

Davies, Paul & Pearse, Eric (2000). Success in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rivers, Wilga (1981). Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press (first edition 1968).

Kurtz, Jürgen (2001). Improvisierendes Sprechen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. [Improvised Speaking in the Foreign Language Classroom]. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung spontansprachlicher Handlungskompetenz in der Zielsprache. Tübingen: Narr. [also available at Google books].

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (8)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Improvisations are task-driven classroom activities designed to promote spontaneous, increasingly self-regulated peer-to-peer interaction in the target language. The following example is intended to illustrate how literary texts can be used to create meaningful, stimulating and challenging opportunities for improvisational communication (in secondary schools).

The Improvisation ‘Suddenly, as if by magic’

The starting point for this communicative activity is a text passage from Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ (Stoker, 1897/1995: 363-365). In the novel, this is the scene where Professor Van Helsing, Arthur, Jonathan and Quincey are in the tomb where poor Lucy (who is ‘un-dead’ already) is buried (story time: September 29, night). They are equipped with all sorts of ‘useful’ things, a lantern, the Bible, a set of operating knives, a heavy hammer, and a round wooden stake sharpened to a fine point at one end. The climax is reached when Van Helsing lifts the lid off Lucy’s coffin and urges Arthur to drive the stake through Lucy’s heart to end her miserable existence as a vampire.

Before the actual improvisation can begin, teachers need to make sure that their learners fully understand the text passage in terms of vocabulary and grammar as well as setting, central characters, plot development, etc. Instead of resorting exclusively to traditional, teacher-centered and IRF-based TEFLSPEAK comprehension techniques, EFL practitioners should come up with suitable, more creative pre-, while- and post-listening and reading activities as, for instance, described in Collie & Slater’s excellent resource book ‘Literature in the Language Classroom’ (1992). This is essential in order to avoid dramatic shifts in the overall methodological design of the learning and teaching process. Since this part of the novel reads almost like a stage description, it can be used for developing traditional role-plays as well (which can also serve to prepare the ground for the subsequent target language improvisational activity).

In general, improvisations differ from traditional role-playing in that they are far less scripted, allowing learners to collaboratively and autonomously create a stretch of largely spontaneous classroom talk-in-interaction. Usually, the starting point of an improvisational activity is a selection of suitable cues which need to be finely tuned by the individual teacher to meet the learners’ target language communicative abilities and specific interests. In my experience, humorous cues which somehow alienate the original plot can help to increase the learners’ willingness to speak and act spontaneously. Here are some ideas to try out (for intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English as a foreign language):

As Arthur took the stake and the hammer, Van Helsing opened the Bible and began to read. Arthur placed the point over Lucy’s heart.

Cue / Variation 1:
Suddenly, as if by magic, Lucy opened her eyes and said: Who are you? And what are you doing here in the middle of the night? Arthur, who didn’t want to make her suspicious, answered: …

Cue / Variation 2:
Suddenly, as if by magic, Lucy opened her eyes and said:
Arthur?! Why do you wake me up in the middle of the night?
Arthur: Well, we’re looking for your will.
Lucy: Here? In my coffin?
Arthur: …

Cue / Variation 3:
Suddenly, as if by magic, Count Dracula appeared and said:
How dare you disturb us here in the middle of the night?
Van Helsing: Well, we thought you might want to watch the beautiful sunrise with us.
Dracula: The sunrise?
Quincey: Yes. Look, we’ve brought sunglasses for Lucy and you.
Dracula: Sunglasses?
Jonathan: Yes, so the sun won’t harm you – well, only a little bit.
Dracula: Are you joking? …

As in the improvisation Bus Stop described in part three of the TEFLSPEAK-G series on this weblog, learners should be confronted with these or other communicative cues without any initial suggestions by the teacher.

After each improvisational enactment, learners ought to reflect on what they have come up with during the improvisation. There should be provision for error discussion, for enriching the learner’s vocabulary and for discussing alternative ways in which the learners might also have expressed themselves. This is of course important for more elaborated improvisational enactments based on this scene. (Repetition is highly important in the EFL classroom, but it should not be confused with or equated with memorized reproduction; for further details see Kurtz 2001, available only in German up to now).

Collie, Joanne & Slater, Stephen (1992). Literature in the Language Classroom. A resource book of ideas and activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kurtz, Jürgen (2001). Improvisierendes Sprechen im Fremdsprachenunterricht. [Improvised Speaking in the Foreign Language Classroom]. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung spontansprachlicher Handlungskompetenz in der Zielsprache. Tübingen: Narr.

Stoker, Bram (1897/1995). Dracula. New York: Smithmark. 

More to come. Stay tuned.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (7)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Improvisational enactments are communicative ‘journeys into the unknown’ (Johnstone 1999: 75), confronting secondary school learners of English as a foreign language with the complex challenges of unpredictable, meandering peer-to-peer interaction in the target language. Contrary to (ultra-)traditional teacher-centered focus on forms-instruction (which is of course a theoretical black and white construct), improvisations seek to enhance spontaneous message-oriented communication, focusing on stretching the learners’ interlanguage, rather than on teaching and adjusting it systematically in preplanned (TEFLSPEAK)-classroom discourse. A number of important and difficult questions concerning the provision of new language material, the treatment of errors, the reduction of speaking anxiety, the teacher’s role, etc. arise from this.

As research has shown, focusing on message-oriented communication in EFL classrooms alone is insufficient to achieve higher / the highest levels of accuracy in target language production. There is a substantial body of evidence in German Fremdsprachendidaktik as well as in international SLA research indicating that periodic attention to the target language system is crucial to ‘push’ learners to greater accuracy. With regard to medium-oriented learning and teaching, Michael H. Long (1997) suggests the following:

“In classroom settings, this is best achieved not by a return to discrete-point grammar teaching, or what I call focus on forms, where classes spend most of their time working on isolated linguistic structures in a sequence predetermined externally by a syllabus designer or textbook writer. Rather, during an otherwise meaning-focused lesson, and using a variety of pedagogic procedures, learners’ attention is briefly shifted to linguistic code features, in context, when students experience problems as they work on communicative tasks, i.e., in a sequence determined by their own internal syllabuses, current processing capacity, and learnability constraints. This is what I call focus on form.”

In addition, Long (1997) states that “[…] focus on form refers only to those form-focused activities that arise during, and embedded in, meaning-based lessons; they are not scheduled in advance, as is the case with focus on forms, but occur incidentally as a function of the interaction of learners with the subject matter or tasks that constitute the learners’ and their teacher’s predominant focus.”

This (strong) interpretation of the communicative approach to learning and teaching foreign/second languages is compelling – at least in theory. Nevertheless, in everyday EFL classroom practice it is highly difficult for teachers to manage the complex interplay between meaning-focused and form-focused communication and to find the right timing for form-oriented classroom discourse.

Target language ‘problems’ occurring in minimally guided, meandering learner talk-in-interaction can be anticipated by teachers to a very limited extent only. Therefore, proactive medium-oriented communication (focus on form: explicit and/or implicit, direct and/or indirect, inductive/deductive) and reactive medium-oriented communication need to be combined with message-oriented communication (focus on the negotiation of meaning) in an iterative (!!!) way. Higher levels of fluency, complexity, accuracy and contextual appropriateness in the target language cannot be achieved through improvisational activities alone, as the following (condensed) transcript shows (13-14 year-old 7th grade middle school (Realschule) learners of English as a foreign language in Germany; after about two years of traditional, predominantly frontal textbook-based instruction):

[...]
T:   So what are your favorite hobbies, Sebastian?
S₁: I like to play computer games
S₂: What do you play .. I mean .. which games?
S₁: Yes.. I play Tetris
S₃: Is the play interesting?
S₄: not play .. it must be games
S₃: OK .. the games .. are they interesting
S₁: Tetris is funny
S₄: Have you .. ähm .. do you play Doom II too?
S₁: No .. I don’t know the game
S₅: What do you do by this game?
S₁: Do you mean Tetris?
S₅: Yes, Tetris
S₁: Well, I must .. I must put little .. (looking for assistance)
S₆: Stones
S₁: Yes I must put little stones down … in eine Reihe [in one row]
S₇: Is the game easy or difficult?
S₁: It’s more easy
S₈: Which stage .. oder so [or so] .. do you play the game
T:   You mean level .. don’t you .. go on
S₁: Yes .. level … which level? … level twelve
S₃: Is the level twelve easy for you?
S₁: It’s not easy .. well, it’s difficult .. because it’s too fast
S₉: How many levels are in the game?
S₁: fifteen
S₁₀: It gives more levels
T: There are more levels
S₁: Well, I don’t know
S₁₁: Where do you play Tetris?
S₁: In my room
[...]

Attempting to prepare learners for improvised target-language speaking through direct or indirect (grammar) instruction is paradoxical. In order for learners to act as “creative designers of meaning” (Swann & Maybin 2007; see part five of the TEFLSPEAK-series), they need to be provided with thematically relevant lexical target language material before and immediately after an improvisation (not just single words, but potentially useful phrases or lexico-grammatical chunks gathered from an appropriate corpus). In order to enhance the accuracy of speech production, they need to be given adequate feedback, including corrective feedback on substantial errors. Thus focus on form / focus on meaning is not an either-or, but a more-or-less decision, depending on the individual learner or group of learners.

More to come next week.
 
Johnstone, Keith (1999). Impro for storytellers. New York: Routledge.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (6)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Improvisations are task-driven learning opportunities (Lerngelegenheiten; Hartmut von Hentig 1993) designed to stimulate spontaneous peer interaction in the target language. The focus is on the natural reciprocity of comprehension and production in communication, on the functional and collaborative practice of the target language in flexible learning environments, on ‘transformation of participation’ rather than on (measurable) ‚outcome‘ and individuals‘ possessions of concepts and skills (see Rogoff 1998).

In order to accomplish an improvisation task, learners need to do more than process target language input and produce output. (The computer metaphor of learning is inadequate to capture the psychosocial complexity of negotiated interaction in secondary school EFL classrooms). Nevertheless, viewed from a purely psycholinguistic perspective, there is supportive evidence that improvised speaking is necessary and beneficial, and that spontaneous negotiation of meaning in increasingly less scripted target language (peer) interaction can contribute to improving ‘language processing abilities’. As Legenhausen (1999) states, “Transfer from code-focused exercises to free communicative practice is not as successful as envisaged by designers of traditional language courses. Traditionally taught learners heavily rely on a limited number of memorized and/or automatized structures, which then act as ‘islands of reliability’ in communicative interactions. … Deliberate instruction of forms does not ensure their accessibility and use in communicative situations. … In order for learners to fully exploit their language processing abilities, they need to be given ample opportunity for experimenting with linguistic forms in authentic communicative situations.”

More to come (for instance on task rehearsal and feedback, the teacher’s role, etc.). Stay tuned.

Hentig, Hartmut von (1993). Die Schule neu denken. München: Hanser.

Legenhausen, Lienhard (1999), “The emergence and use of grammatical structures in conversational interactions – comparing traditional and autonomous learners. In: Mißler, Bettina & Multhaup, Uwe (Eds.). The Construction of Knowledge, Learner Autonomy and Related Issues in Foreign Language Learning. Essays in Honour of Dieter Wolff. Tübingen: Stauffenberg, 27-40.

Rogoff, Barbara (1998), „Cognition as a collaborative process.“ In: Damon, William (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology. Fifth edition. Volume II: Cognition, Perception, and Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 679-744.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (5)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

Improvisation is a vague concept that is not defined clearly. With regard to speaking a foreign language, it refers to

• situated target language performance, and to learning by / while doing,
• accessing one’s target language / intercultural resources under communicative pressure, especially in informal communicative contexts which are usually less scripted and predictable,
• employing (compensatory) communicative strategies spontaneously, and furthermore to
• making use of whatever the totality of the communicative context has to offer,
• being flexible and creative in a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic ways,
• being prepared to take risks in the process of negotiating / co-constructing meaning.

How does this relate to current research and theory construction? In a recent issue of Applied Linguistics, Joann Swann & Janet Maybin (2007: 491) emphasize the importance of creativity for language learning. They point out that “creativity may be identified broadly as a property of all language users in that language users do not simply reproduce but recreate, refashion, and recontextualize linguistic and cultural resources in the act of communication.” They go on to say that “playfulness and humour is a potential characteristic of creativity” (2007: 492). It is evident that improvisation is a similar concept, which focuses on spontaneous, unprepared language use in the first place; more generally: on the predictability-unpredictability dimension of oral exchanges. 

The theory of foreign language improvisation is grounded in classroom-based empirical research spanning more than a decade (see, for instance, Kurtz 1997). Here is one more transcript illustrating what improvised speech is all about in actual classroom practice, how it affects oral production and how it contributes to target language communicative flexibility. Again, the format of interaction is Bus Stop (as described in part three of the TEFLSPEAK-G series). The improvisers are two 11-year-old German 5th grade students (after about nine months of learning English in a comprehensive school in Germany) (L = learner; T = teacher; … = pause; ? = intonation suggesting a question):

[...] 
T:  All right … who is next? 
L₁: Can I please? Herr Schneider .. can I?
T:  O.K. Simon … and who is your partner? … Murat? … no? what about Marc? … fine .. Simon and .. eh .. Marc .. you are at .. em .. the bus stop. … let’s count! … [whole class] … THREE, TWO, ONE, ACTION
L₂: Yes … em .. hello. 
L₁: Hello, my name is .. Simon. 
L₂: Pleased to meet you, .. em .. I’m Marc. 
L₁: Are you waiting for the bus? 
L₂: Yes .. how about some sweets? 
L₁: Thank you .. [cue:]  … em .. your shirt .. eh … is really beautiful .. [begin impro:] .. is it new?
L₂: Yes.
L₁: Look, … es [German word] … ähm … it [self correction] is dirty. Can you see .. it?
L₂: No .. your shirt is dirty … look 
L₁: What? .. that’s not .. er .. dirty … that’s modern  /mo’de:rn/ [end impro] [outburst of laughter in class]
L₂: Oh, mmh .. here comes my bus. I have to go. Nice talking to you. Bye.
L₁: Bye
[applause]

Still more to come. Stay tuned.

Swann, Joanne & Maybin, Janet (2007), “Introduction: Language Creativity in Everyday Contexts.” Applied Linguistics, 28, 491-496.

Kurtz, Jürgen (1997a). Improvisation als Übung zum freien Sprechen. (Improvisation as Free Speaking Practice). Englisch, 3, 87-97. 

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (4)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

When beginning learners of English as a foreign language are confronted with a challenging communicative task such as Bus Stop, how do they manage to keep the exchange going? What kinds of improvisation strategies (e.g. compensatory strategies) do they employ spontaneously? How do they negotiate meaning and coordinate turn-taking when speaking without a script? How do they help each other when target language vocabulary problems occur? How important are code-switching and code-mixing?

The following transcript documents a short dialogue between two 11-year-old German 5th grade students (after about nine months of learning English in a comprehensive school in Germany) (L = learner; T = teacher; … = pause; ? = intonation suggesting a question):

[...] 
T: All right .. Benjamin .. throw the dice now
L₁: It’s .. twelve /twölf/
T: So .. who has got number twelve … Dilek? … O.K. .. Once again Benny
L₁: Sixteen
T: Kerstin? … Very good. … Dilek and Kerstin .. go to .. em .. the bus stop and sit down please … [applause]
T: Are you ready? Let’s count … 
[Whole class] THREE .. TWO .. ONE .. ACTION …
L₁₂: Hello
L₁₆: Hello .. my name is .. Kerstin
L₁₂: Pleased to meet you .. em .. Kerstin .. I’m Dilek
L₁₆: Are you waiting /ai/ for the bus?
L₁₂: Yes .. how about some sweets?
L₁₆: Thank you…. [cue:] I’m on the way to the supermarket, you know … I’d like to buy … [begin impro:] … mmh … apples // apples .. bananas .. chocolate
L₁₂: Bananas and chocolate? … for you?
L₁₆: No .. that is for my little … brother
L₁₂: I’m driving to .. the pet shop
L₁₆: Pet shop? What is this?
L₁₂: It’s for dogs, cats … and animals .. [5 sec] .. It’s in Selby Road [reference to EFL textbook used]
L₁₆: What’s your hobby? // .. [2 sec] .. hobbies?
L₁₂: My hobbies? .. [5 sec].. Yes .. em .. swimming
L₁₆: Swimming? Is .. er … swimming difficult?
L₁₂: Sorry no idea … [end impro] … Oh .. here comes my bus .. I .. go .. nice talking to you .. bye ..
L₁₆: Good bye
T: O.K. very good … let’s stop here .. that was very good indeed .. thank you Dilek and Kerstin .. well done
[applause]

The transcript indicates that even at a very early stage of their interlanguage development, schoolchildren are able to communicate effectively. In the exemplary sequence above, they do not simply ’get a message across individually’, but interactively co-construct a target language exchange all on their own, using a number of creative, more or less convincing strategies such as, for instance, variation of intonation (rising / falling) or meaning (general / specific) or change of topic, etc. Their target language repertoire is limited, of course. Nevertheless, instruction should not be reduced to the correction of target language pronunciation and grammar errors. The focus of teaching needs to be on the tiny little ‘communicative nuclei’ that the transcript shows, for instance: ”L₁₆: Pet shop? What is this? – L₁₂: It’s for dogs, cats, and animals”.

More to come. Stay tuned.

PS.: Much of what has been published on task-based instruction is based on research carried out outside secondary school EFL classrooms. In his book Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching, Rod Ellis (2004: 336-337) points out that “… there have been few attempts to adopt this kind of teaching in institutional contexts (such as high schools) and few truly task-based courses published to date …”. The ongoing research project Improvised Speaking in Secondary School EFL Classrooms (Kurtz 1996 - …) is just one (of these attempts).

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (3)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany 

The Improvisation ‘Bus Stop’ 

Inspired by the central theme of the movie ‘Forrest Gump’, i.e. life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get, the improvisation ‘Bus Stop’ offers EFL learners a flexible communicative framework which consists of a brief introductory sequence, an incentive to talk spontaneously (improvising a dialogue based on different cues), and, in contrast to traditional role-plays, a so-called communicative emergency exit (ending the conversation without losing face).

 

This is the basic format or procedural infrastructure of interaction (in this case for beginning learners of English, towards the end of their first year; L = learner):

L₁ : Hello.
L₂ : Hello, I’m [name].
L₁ : Pleased to meet you, [name]. I’m [name].
L₂: Are you waiting for the bus?
L₁: Yes. How about some sweets?
L₂: Thank you.

L₂ accepts the offer and draws a piece of paper from the chocolate box. He/she finds one of the following exemplary cues to continue with (idea: “you never know what you’re going to get” / motto: use what you know, learn what you can, make up the rest as you go along):

• I’m on the way to school, you know. I’m in the 5th grade. …
• I’m on the way to the supermarket, you know. I’d like to buy…
• Hey! Look at that boy over there. What is he doing?
• Listen! Can you hear that? It’s coming from that old bag over there. What’s in it?
• Excuse me, is this [...] yours? …
• Excuse me, why are you smiling?
• I’m on the way to the pet shop. This is my cat “Fluffy”. It …
• I’m on the way to the disco. My hobby is dancing. What’s your hobby?

Communicative emergency exit:
L_1/2: Oh, here comes my bus. I have to go. Nice talking to you. Bye.
L_1/2: Good bye.

More to come next week.

TEFLSPEAK-G and the Idea of Encouraging Improvised Speech in the EFL Classroom (2)

posted by Jürgen Kurtz, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

A broad spectrum of theories dealing with the learning and teach­ing of English as a foreign language are currently under discussion world-wide, ranging from cogni­tive approaches on the one hand to socio-cultural on the other. The theories are often based on very specific concepts of what a hu­man being is, and on sometimes contradictory epistemological assump­tions about the nature of (language) learning in general. Usually, however, the underlying sets of basic anthropological beliefs and values are not made explicit. One has to read between the lines, and that is, of course, highly problematic. Roughly speaking, two differ­ent images of man (Menschenbilder) can be distinguished. Whereas cognitive ap­proaches view the foreign language learner as a mental being and an increas­ingly independent self (autonomy, awareness, ‘possession’ of competence), socio-cultural approaches stress the aspect of human in­terdependence, focusing on the learner as a social being and an interdependent self (transformation of participation in social activity, ‘language use mediating language learning’ (Merrill Swain), performance, communicative and intercultural knowledge and skills seen as a participatory potential).

Both views are important, but a convincing theoretical framework which can serve as a solid basis for the design of powerful EFL learning environments and, ultimately, the implementation of effective instructional procedures and techniques, needs to integrate both, the internal (the learner / teacher as a mental being) and the external (the learner / teacher as a social being). Theories which are too re­ductive anthropologically, separating the mental from the social, are didactically less convincing, especially or at least from the teacher’s practical per­spective, and they rather widen than bridge the gap between theory and prac­tice.  

The concept of improvised speaking roughly outlined in the following is based on the funda­mental insight that learners and teachers are not ‘dualities of social being and mental being’, and that ‘the psyche of the group – the group’s values, meanings, and volitions – is a distinct entity other than the sum of the in­dividual psy­chological orientations of teacher and learners’ (Michael Breen). …

In Germany, many EFL teachers do not seem to see their students as ‘thinking social ac­tors’ (Breen) within a community of practice primarily, but as individual ‘generators of target language input-output’. The typical EFL classroom in Germany is firmly controlled by the teacher and the textbook, and the English spoken differs in many regards from everyday language use in English-speaking countries (see TEFLSPEAK (1) on this blog). On the whole, German teach­ers do try to provide a scaffold to stimulate meaningful classroom interaction and to facilitate learning within communicative contexts, but this all too often results in a massive imbalance of teacher talk and student talk. The teacher often speaks as much or even more than all the learners together. In addition to this, students rarely ask questions. There is very little room for them to take the communicative initiative, to use language creatively, to experiment with language, to extend their participatory potential in the target language, etc. Instead, they are pre­dominantly expected to answer teacher questions or react to verbal or non-verbal prompts. The typical interactional pattern or ‘syntax of action’ (Paul Drew & John Heritage) consists of three moves: teacher-question or teacher-initiated (visual) prompt; student-answer; teacher-feedback, often focused on the treatment of formal errors. As a result, Eng­lish dialogues produced in German classrooms are reciprocal to a certain extent, but there is very little room for improvisation, for creative language use, for spontaneous speaking, for ‘stretching one’s interlanguage’ and, ultimately, for experiential learning.  

In my view, EFL learners viewed as ‘thinking social actors’, not as ‘dead bodies, talking heads’ (Michael K. Legutke) need a classroom environment that helps and enables them to flexibly make use of their limited target language resources, and this means that one highly important but often neglected aspect of classroom interaction needs to be given more attention, i.e. the ‘predictability – unpredictability dimension’ of oral communication (H.H. Stern). … 

Improvisations are task-based interactive classroom activities specifically designed to enhance spontaneous und flexible (unpredictable and less formulaic) language use in EFL classrooms. They aim at allowing learners ‘to use language freely, because they offer an element of choice; to use language purposefully, because there is something to be done; and to use language creatively, because they call for imagination’ (Tony Butterfield). The basic idea is: ‘Use what you know. Learn what you can. Make up the rest as you go along’ (Trish Berrong).  

As ‘genuine’ ‘episodes of talk-in-interaction’ (Emmanuel Schegloff), improvisations provide learners with a more or less detailed procedural infrastructure of interaction which functions as an implicitly understood, shared contextual framework (contextualized, task-based learning). They encourage risk-taking: tolerance with regard to formal correctness, focus on partial learner autonomy, on impromptu communication, and on the reduction of speaking anxiety). Above all, they try to increase the learners’ communicative confidence: Why should they try to speak freely, if they don’t have anything interesting to talk about?  

However, the learning process would be incomplete without any feedback (or feedback loop). Improvisation activities consist of two parts, therefore: improvised impromptu speaking followed by a few minutes of feedback on the learners’ performance, for which not only the teacher is responsible. Of course, feedback should not only focus on formal correctness. Pragmatic / intercultural appropriateness and the discussion of communicative options should also be a central aspect of the feedback phase.  

One prototypical activity – the improvisation ‘Bus Stop’ – will be presented here in a few days. Stay tuned.