The Language Teacher
06 - 2000
A: When Is a Conversation Not a Conversation?
Keith Ford
Tokyo Womens Christian University
Get any group of language teachers in the same room for long enough, and the conversation will eventually turn to teaching materials. Often, foremost in these discussions is the use of class texts--some teachers swear by their textbooks, others swear by anything but! In this months Opinions & Perspectives column, the place of scripted dialogues in language textbooks is hotly debated. Keith Ford opens with a discussion of their appropriateness for language development. Presenting the opposite view, William Gatton argues for greater teacher input into the way these materials are used.
In this article I look at the pedagogic technique of scripted dialogues and suggest that they are not appropriate for developing learners communication and conversation skills. Yet, these dialogues continue to be a regular feature of many mainstream EFL textbooks whose primary goal is to promote "communication" in the language classroom.
Over the years communication has become the predominant buzzword of language teaching, and such is its powerful commercial draw that it seems many textbook publishers cannot resist its appearance in some shape or form on their glossy covers. A few examples are Atlas: Learning-Centred Communication (Nunan 1995); New Interchange: English for International Communication (Richards, Hull, and Proctor, 1997); True Colors: An EFL Course for Real Communication (Maurer and Schoenberg 1998). Does the use of such terms as "learning-centred communication" and "real communication" represent a genuine reflection of the content and aims of these textbooks? The following back-cover blurbs leave no doubt as to their communicative intent:
Its learner-centred, task-based approach motivates learners and helps to create an active, communicative classroom. (Atlas)
The underlying philosophy of the course is that language is best learned when used for meaningful communication. (New Interchange)
True Colors systematically builds students ability to communicate their own thoughts, opinions, and feelings . . . True Colors achieves real communication in the classroom through a unique combination of activities. (True Colors)
If promoting genuine communication in the language classroom is the main goal of these courses, I suggest that they should be encouraging students to use the L2 in a creative and spontaneous way as much as possible, free from the parrot-fashion practice of grammatical structures and contrived dialogues. However, scripted dialogues under the rather ironic heading of Conversation (to be read, listened to, and practiced) are a constant feature of these three textbooks: Atlas 3 uses them at least once in each of its 14 units, New Interchange 2 twice in each of its 16 units, and True Colors 3 three times in each of its 10 units. The following is a typical example:
Pairwork: Listen, and then practice this conversation
A: What do you think life will be like in twenty years?
B: Well, I think everyone will be able to work from home.
A: Really? I dont think there will be any work.
B: And I think well be able to do our shopping and order food from home.
A: We wont be able to buy real food. Well all live on pills.
B: And cities will be different. Well be able to get around on high-speed public transportation.
A: I think that cities will be too big. We wont be able to go anywhere. (Atlas 3, p. 28)
So, is this kind of "activity" representative of a "learner-centred, task-based approach"? Does it really involve students in "meaningful communication"? Does it allow them "to communicate their own thoughts, opinions, and feelings"? Surely, getting students to follow repetitive practice of this kind of contrived dialogue is actually a contradiction of the very principles that these texts claim to adhere to.
These dialogues are clearly not a reflection of genuine communication. Rather, the above example is a contrived attempt at enforcing the practice of a particular grammatical structure (modal will). The repetitive use of "I think" (five times) and of the uncontracted form of the modal (five times) produces a stilted and unnatural dialogue. Also, B's second turn appears to ignore A's topic.
From classroom experience, I would suggest that the practising of these dialogues is not an effective method of developing students communication and conversation skills. After such practice, are students seriously expected to be able to put it spontaneously into use at their next opportunity to have a real conversation? Whats more, how are teachers supposed to use this "manufactured" input to develop a genuinely communicative activity?
Further, I believe that using these contrived dialogues as pedagogic tools can give students the wrong impression about the language learning process. Many students who have to follow such a practice may be led to believe that learning a language is more about rote memorisation than about participating in genuine creative communication. Their use, and the resulting stilted and unnatural language production, may also partly explain the rather negative generalisations often heard about Japanese EFL classrooms, e.g., "Many Japanese students use English like parrots rather than like thinking human beings" (Paul, 1998, p27).
Teachers should be able to justify methodology and lesson content, with practice being based on sound pedagogic principles. Is there sound pedagogic reasoning for the consistent use of scripted dialogues in the communicative classroom? David Nunan, the author of Atlas, rather curiously remarks that "comprehending and manipulating scripted dialogues does not readily transfer to comprehending and using language in real communicative situations" (1988, p. 100). A conflict of principle and practice? If so, can we then presume that it is the publishers who are insistent on maintaining the regular incorporation of these dialogues (for simplicity of formatting perhaps?), and that the authors are willing to put aside their principles? If so, perhaps a more appropriate title for the next so-called "communicative" textbook might be Money Talks.
References
Maurer, J. & Schonberg, I. (1998). True colors: An EFL course for real communication. London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1995). Atlas: Learner-centred communication. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Paul, D. (1998). False assumptions in the Japanese classroom. The Language Teacher 22 (7), 27-28.
Richards, J.C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (1997). New interchange: English for international communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website