New Empirical Study on Productive Speaking and Formulaic Language Use in Primary EFL

by Nina Kostka, Justus Liebig University (JLU) Giessen, Germany

Productive speaking is rare to observe in primary EFL classrooms in Germany (cf. Roos 2007: 169, Engel 2009: 200). It is generally assumed that – due to the predominance of imitative-reproductive speaking phases and the widespread use of formulaic language – there is too little time to encourage productive speaking skills (cf. Engel 2009: 198/200, Roos 2007: 183/187). Nonetheless, according to the official curricula of the German federal states, productive speaking is an important goal in primary EFL education (e.g. HKM 2010: 15). Moreover, in order to promote productive speaking in class, the use of formulaic sequences is explicitly recommended and approved (e.g. HKM 2010: 20).

This new empirical study investigates young learners’ formulaic language use in the primary EFL classroom, in relation to the development of their productive speaking skills (focusing on dialogical speaking between learners primarily; in the third grade, their first year of learning English). Ultimately, the study aims at developing a preliminary, model-like methodological concept for developing productive speaking skills in the primary EFL classroom.

As part of the research project, a teaching model to enhance productive speaking skills was developed and implemented in cooperation with three third grade-primary school teachers (in the context of a participatory action research project). Spontaneously spoken learner dialogues were recorded in vivo (audio-visual and auditive) during the ‘natural’ classroom setting as well as in vitro in an especially created communicative situation at the end of the first year of learning English. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the cooperating teachers to enrich the data with another perspective on the students’ language production, the lesson planning and the contributing factors for productive speaking.

One important finding is that third graders use the learned/aquired formulaic sequences (mainly the variable patterns) productively in the course of their first year of English. A second key finding is that primary EFL learners use formulaic sequences in a varied/segmented way to express their personal communicative needs. However, as expected, the use of formulaic sequences decreases over time. In sum, the study indicates that the systematic use of content-flexible and variable patterns in class can have a substantial impact on the children’s development of productive speaking skills.

To read the complete study, please click here

Literature
Engel, Gaby (2009). EVENING – Konsequenzen für die Weiterentwicklung des Englischunterrichts in der Grundschule. In Gaby Engel, Bernd Groot-Wilken & Eike Thürmann (Hrsg.) Englisch in der Primarstufe – Chancen und Herausforderungen. Evaluation und Erfahrungen aus der Praxis (S. 197-215). Berlin: Cornelsen.

(HKM) Hessisches Kultusministerium (2010). Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder. Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen. Primarstufe. Entwurf. Moderne Fremdsprachen. Online: https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/sites/default/files/media/kc_mfs_prst_201103_21.pdf, (20.07.2020).

Roos, Jana (2007). Spracherwerb und Sprachproduktion. Lernziele und Lernergebnisse im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Tübingen: Narr.

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).