The Language Teacher
December 2000
Adapting DiPietro's Strategic Interactions to an EEL Context
Robert W. Long III
Kyushu Institute of Technology
Introduction: Time for a Change?
If you are like many teachers, you probably have been using a textbook that relies heavily on situational/grammar routines, along with a few references to functions. Popular textbooks that use this approach include English Firsthand, Interchange, True Colors, Headway among others; typical situations include dating, personalities customs, getting around town, movies, and meeting classmates. At first glance this approach seems the most sensible approach to teaching communicative oral English; however, unless one has very motivated students, this approach (especially after the several weeks) tends to fall flat, with teachers initiating most of the routines, and students ending up trying to memorize words and phrases. Even in the best of circumstances, it is difficult to make this approach work since it is a collection of unrelated conversational routines and vocabulary with no connection to the speaker's own identity and context. This lack of intimacy may have negative consequences for those learning foreign languages as DiPietro (1994) states: "The transactional value of any utterance must be interpreted in the context of a particular speaker working through a scenario with a personal game plan in mind" (p. 39). Language is tied to context and to identity, taking away these two crucial elements leaves students with only a very superficial knowledge of English structures.
A second issue relates to the tendency of some teachers to believe that their students are becoming more fluent if they master more grammar and conversational role plays. Knowledge of English, however, does not lead to interactive competency. Since language involves emotions, communication breakdowns can easily occur when a speaker is being persuaded, pressured, or annoyed. Also, interactions are often complex as well as ambiguous; DiPietro discusses the breadth of this ambiguity and breaks it down into three parts: (a) structural (focus on information), (b) transactional (focus on negotiation and intention), and (c) interaction (emphasis on roles and speaker identity) ambiguity. Furthermore, breakdowns in conversations can easily occur because there is a variety of ways that meaning can be expressed, and students may not be familiar with every colloquial expression and cultural convention (see also, DiPietro, 1983).
In short, I found that the act of rehearsing communication tends to be superficial, and predictable since the only motivation to speak is to receive a grade. When language instruction and textbooks ignore the importance that one's emotions and identity has on communication, students will have difficulty being motivated. With strategic interactions (SI), the motivation to speak (just as it is in real life) comes from trying to solve problems, interact and form relationships, and to project one's own identity and views.
Strategic Interactions
The procedure for SI has three stages: (a) the rehearsal stage where participants discuss and negotiate the problem-solving strategies and discuss which functional expressions are applicable to given situation, (b) the performance stage in which students perform the scenario in front of participants, and (c) the debriefing stage, a time in which students (and the teacher) will discuss their reactions to the scenario and whether or not their responses were appropriate and accurate. Strategic interactions can be 6. done with novice to advanced speakers, from wordlevel phrases to paragraph length speech; grammar and forms are learned by analyzing errors (and strengths) in their own responses. The principle aim of strategic interactions (Sl) is to develop student confidence, fluency, linguistic accuracy, and pragmatic competency.
Students are cast in various contexts in which they are reacting to questions, comments, observations, opinions, invitations, problems, and conflicts. Strategic interactions are more than a glorified role play insofar that they are open-ended allowing teachers to explore differences in language and outcomes; furthermore, they can be episodic, covering two or more events. Second, not only is there a shared context, but the participants have their own agendas and identities that are linked to the real world. There are also different types of scenarios: group, multiple-roled, databased, and open-ended (below).
Piloting Strategic Interactions
I began piloting SI a year and half ago with 66 first and second year university students who met for 90 minutes once a week for class. It soon became clear that various tasks were needed to sustain student motivation from lesson to lesson and that even novice open-ended scenarios were too difficult. The literature on pragmatics was helpful: there are six types of tasks that can help develop a student's interactive or pragmatic performance. (For more details, see Brown, in press; Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. 1992, 1995; Yoshitake & Enochs, 1996; Enochs & Yoshitake-Strain, 1999).
- Written Discourse Completion Tasks are any pragmatics measures that oblige examinees to (a) read a written situation description and then (b) write what they would say next in the situation.
- Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Tasks are any pragmatic measures that oblige examinees to (a) read a written description then (b) select what they think would be best to say next in the situation from a list of options.
- Oral Discourse Completion Tasks are any pragmatics measures that oblige examinees to (a) listen to a situation description (typically from a cassette recording) and (b) speak aloud what they would say next in that situation (usually into another cassette recorder).
- Discourse Role-Play Tasks are any pragmatic measures that oblige the examinees to (a) read a situation description and (b) play a role with another person in the situation.
- Discourse Self-Assessment Tasks are any pragmatic measures that oblige examinees to (a) read a situation description and (b) rate their own ability to perform pragmatically in that situation.
- Role-Play Self-Assessments are any pragmatics measures that oblige the examinee to both (a) view their own pragmatic performance(s) in previously video-recorded role plays and (b) rate those performances.
Due to equipment restraints, I have piloted all but the last task. In time, I found it very helpful to sequence activities, starting with easier multiple-choice discourse completion tasks, and discourse self-assessment tasks followed by written discourse completion tasks, before moving on to more open-ended discourse role plays; see Appendixes B and C of a description of novice and intermediate-level activities that have proven successful in stimulating interaction and developing interactive competency.
A second problem related to situations that were familiar, meaningful and realistic, a context that my students could immediately relate to and would find interesting. In the real world, Japanese students rarely would speak English to each other except for situations like English clubs meetings; therefore, it seemed logical to have situations based on four intercultural contexts (a) orientation (in which students ask for directions, or help foreigners in some manner), (b) socialization, (c) problem-solving, and (d) conflict resolution. (See Appendix A for a deductive dialogue based based on orientation). Before beginning each task, I read outloud the situation, outlined the purpose of the two (or more) roles, and explained any underlying social or cultural factors that might be relevant.
Also, in the initial phase of piloting, I had too many scenarios either ending too quickly or turning into an interrogative bout of questions and answers. For example, if one of the goals in a scenario was to a discover two interesting things about a classmate, many students would briefly answer the questions with one or two words. For further insight into issues relating to self-disclosure and communicative styles, see Lebra,1987; Barnlund, 1975, Kobayashi & Nihei, 1995. I decided to emphasize conversational strategies, using the direct approach (Richards, 1990) of teaching fixed expressions. As Dornyei and Thurrel (1994) maintain, "polished conversationalists are in command of hundreds of such phrases and use them, for example to break smoothly into a conversation, to hold the listener's interest, to change the subject, to react to what others say, and to step elegantly out of the conversation when they wish" (p. 41). Thus, extensively modeling these phrases and how students can work from brief and formal responses to longer, and more spontaneous, personal, and informal replies proved very helpful as was writing deductive dialogues that included interruptions, use of fillers, topic-shifts, hestitation devices, and various kinds of closings (see Appendix A). Random reviews of various tasks (usually five or six times over two months) helped to improve pragmatic competency insofar that students would be encouraged to speak faster, and extend on their answers as they changed partners and roles.
A final issue related to debriefing and evaluation. As for debriefing students on specific issues or problems that they had in their interactions, I relied on two methods in which to provide feedback: randomly selecting and listening in on two or three pairs of students and using their strengths and weaknesses as a means of feedback for everyone in the class, and using written discourse completion and discourse role play tasks as a means of identifying problematic areas for discussion. Serious attention to grammatical or sociolinguistic errors would only be given if they were repeated over a period of several weeks. As for exams, I have used two kinds of tests, the first being a speaking, listening and writing test which included two versions. Again, following the same procedures used for the SI tasks, a student writes his or her name on the test, changes exams with a classmate, reads aloud the comments, questions, opinions within each task, and then records the responses of his partner. When students finish one section, they can then change partners. I found that it is important to leave enough time so that students can check and edit any mistakes. A second option is a reading and writing test that contains various tasks, and gambits; students write down how they would verbally respond to each situation and prompt. Evaluation of student performance is based on three criteria: (a) accuracy, if the student's choice of vocabulary and wording is suitable; (b) appropriateness, whether a student's response was relevant, sensitive, polite, and mature; and (c) effort, whether or not the response was sufficient. Depending on how strict one wanted to be, students could meet two or all of the above criteria.
Conclusion
It might appear that the teacher's role with SI-based activities is limited, but for this approach to work, teachers still need to observe the dynamics of the pair or group, paying close attention to body language, intonation, and to turn-taking. Furthermore, teachers need to suggest options and model utterances if the pair or group appears to be stymied. In conclusion, I found using SI-based activities made my class far more interactive and interesting. It allowed me to put aside the shopping list of functions and conversational routines that textbooks offer and break into some real conversations and interactions.
Robert W. Long has been teaching in Japan for seven years in both Hiroshima and Kitakyushu. He holds a specialist degree in TESL. Aside from strategic interactions and curriculum, his current research areas include culture, social psychology, and interlanguage. <long@dhs.kyutech.ac.jp>
References
Barnlund, D. (1975). Public and prive self in Japan and the United States: Communicative styles of two cultures. Tokyo: Simul.
Brown, J. D. (in press). Six types of pragmatics tests in two different contexts. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
DiPietro, R. (1994). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. UK: Cambridge University Press.
DiPietro, R. (1983). Scenarios, discourse, and real-life roles. In J.W. Oller, P.A. Richard-Amato (Eds.), Methods that work. London: Newbury House Publishers.
Dornyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively: course content and rationale. ELT Journal,48(1),40-49.
Enochs, K., & Yoshitake-Strain, S. (1999). Evaluating six measures of EFL learners' pragmatics competence. ALT Journal,21,29-50.
Gershon, S. & Mares, C. (1997). Online Basic: the fast route to fluency. UK: Heinemann.
Helgesen, M, Brown, S. & Mandeville, T. (1999). English Firsthand 1. Hong Kong: Addison Wesley
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics: Technical report #2. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, 1. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross cultural pragmatics: Technical report #7. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Kobayashi, K. & Nehei, Y. (1995). Designing an intercultural syllabus I. Bulletin of the faculty of education, (Humanities and Social Sciences) Ibaraki University 44, 169-184.
Lebra, T. (1987). The cultural significance of silence in Japanese communication. Multilingua 6 (4), 343-357.
Maurer, 1. & Schoenberg, S. (1999). True Colors: An EFL course for real communication. New York: Addison Wesley
Richards, J. (1990). Conversationaly speaking: approaches to the teaching of conversation. In J. Richards (Ed.) The language teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. (1994). Interchange: English for international communication. Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Sores, J. (1991). Headway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yoshitake, S., & Enochs, K. (1996). Self assessment and role play for evaluating appropriateness in speech act realizations. ICU Language Research Bulletin, 11, 57-76.
Directions: Write your name on your paper and change papers. Write your partner's response on his or her own paper. After finishing, practice the following gambits, changing partners. Work on fluency and accuracy.
Gambit 1- Geez, This is the craziest sport I have ever seen
Situation: Getting oriented in Japan
Problem: An American does not understand sumo, and wants to know all about it.
Purpose: Explain the rules, and goals to sumo.
Grammar: Models: should, shouldn't, must, mustn't.
Relevant expressions: "Well, I don't know that much about it, but . . ." "In sumo, the goal is to push, throw down one's opponent"
| Role A. An American | Role B. Yourself |
| Context: You are sitting in the university lounge and you are watching a sumo contest. You have never seen a sumo match before, and you ask a Japanese sitting next to you about it. | Context: You are watching a sumo match on TV, waiting for a friend. An American turns to you and wants to know about sumo. |
| Comment: This is pretty crazy. Do you find this exciting? | Reply: _____________________________ |
| Comment: Really? | Reply: _____________________________ |
| Comment: Well, what the rules? It just seems to be a lot of pushing and slapping. | Reply: _____________________________ |
| Comment: Oh-wait a minute. I have a phone call. | Reply: _____________________________ |
|
[After finishing on the phone] Comment: Now, what were you saying again? |
Reply: _____________________________ |
| Comment: Now, that last bout -- it seems real unfair that the small wrestler has to compete against that larger one. | Reply: _____________________________ |
| Comment: Well, anyhow, I think it would be more interesting with women | Reply: _____________________________ |
|
[After finishing on the phone] Comment: Oh my, I GOT to go! I' m late for a lecture! See ya! |
Reply: _____________________________ |
| Appropriate | Accurate | Sufficient |
| Activity | Competency Procedure | Examples |
|
Better Said Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Tasks |
Orientation: Providing word/ phrase level information about oneself or interests. Procedure: Have students read and mark their responses. Afterwards, provide answers. Discuss and have students interact with one reading aloud the prompts, another responding. |
Prompts 1. I am interested in rap music. [ ] Oh, really -- I think it is garbage myself. [ ] Wow! I didn?t know anyone like that stuff. [ ] Hmmm -- I always wanted to know more about it. [ ] Oh -- great. |
|
I Stand Corrected Discourse Role-Play Task |
Orientation: Correcting misinformation about one's background or history, or in regards to location, process. Procedure: Have students select various ones to ask their partner. After changing partners and roles, have students speak longer and faster. |
Role A: I 1. Isn?t your name Haga? 2. I heard that you have 6 people in your family? 3. Mr. Long said you like playing volleyball. 4. If I remember correctly, you said you like chess. Role B: 1. Is it true that you were born in Hokkaido. 2. Is today really your birthday? 3. I like running just like you. 4. So how long have you practiced kendo? |
|
Are You Free Role-Play Self-Assessment |
Socialization: The focus is on making invitations, and establishing common interests. Procedure: This is done in groups of 5; 4 students extend various invitations to the remaining student who must accept and reject them. Students change roles, and afterwards, they decide which student did the best. |
Recipient: (accepts or rejects invitations, ideas) Student A: How about dinner, let?s go to that soba shop across the street. Student B: Hey, let me treat you to dinner at McDonalds. Student C: Would you like to have dinner at that new Italian restaurant. It has REAL Italian food. Student D: There is a BBQ party at my place. Could you bring some beer. It's at 7:00 p.m. |
|
In Context Discourse Self-Assessment Task |
Various Contexts Procedure: Students read through various situations and rate their competency. Afterwards, they choose one or two of the situations, and write out how they would respond. |
Scale: 1- Very easy 2 - Somewhat challenging 3 - Difficult 4 - Very Problematic 1. You meet a beautiful woman/handsome man who is from New Zealand. Introduce yourself, and invite him/her out to dinner. [ ] 2. Your friend has had your favorite CD and you want it back. You think he/she might have lost it. Ask about it. [ ] |
|
You Don' t Say Written Discourse Completion Task |
Problem-solving: Respond to various complaints, and issues. Procedure: Have students read through and write down how they would respond to problems. Then in pairs, with one student giving advice, and the other responding to various complaints, and problems. Change partners so students can work on fluency. |
Issues: 1. I have always lost at pachinko, mahjongg & poker. 2. I don' t like learning English; it?s too difficult. 3. I like playing baseball, but our team is really bad. 4. I have such a busy schedule! I wish I had more time. 5. Do you have ANY free time lately? I don' t know what to do. 6. I have no friends here; everyone is too busy! |
|
Face to Face Written Discourse Completion Task |
Problem-solving: Respond to situational-based issues. Procedure: Again, have students read and write down how they would respond before acting out the practice. After doing several situations, have students change partners. Students who respond do not read aloud their response. Work on fluency. |
Situation: Your club captain wants the team to have more practice each week-- two more hours! How do you respond? Club Captain: I' ve been looking for you. You know, I have been thinking that what the team really needs to have more practice. So we are going to practice 4 hours on Saturday instead of two. You: ________________ Club Captain: Did you know that other school and city teams practice 5 hours each weekend? You: _________________ |
|
For the Record Discourse Role-Play Task |
Conflict-Resolution: Have students affirm or deny a variety of rumors or misunderstandings. Use two versions for pair work. Procedure: Have students in rows read through and respond to each other's prompts. |
Set 1: 1. How can you be so lazy and relaxed all the time? 2. Someone said that you are always show up late? 3. Did you really cheat on the entrance exam? Set 2: 1. Am I to understand that you spend 90,000 a week on clothes? 2. So, do you like wearing old clothes all the time? 3. Why did you say that I can' t speak English? |
|
What If Written Discourse Completion Task |
Conflict-Resolution: Have students listen and evaluate various solutions to a series of issues. Procedure: Students act as if they ask soliciting advice for a friend. In groups of 4, one student will listen and decide on the best answer for each cue. Act out. |
Comment: My Response 1. Someone told you that your best__________ friend was boring for not liking _________ baseball. ________ 2. What if someone told you that __________ you were not good looking. __________________ |
| Activity | Competency Procedure | Examples |
|
We Believe Written Discourse Completion Tasks |
Orientation: Providing word/ phrase level information about various issues and ideas. Procedure: Students in pairs decide on they would both would respond to a list of comments from people abroad. Afterwards, students change partners, chose if who reads and who responds, and work on their oral responses. |
Jerry Fostrum, from New York City, writes, "Many people think sumo is the national sport of Japan. Therefore, don' t you think it should be limited to just Japanese participants?" Our response:____________ Carlos Servito (Manila, Philippines): "I think baseball is not all that interesting. I am puzzled why Japanese like it so much." Our response: ___________ |
|
Do' s and Don' ts Oral Discourse Completion Task |
Orientation: Correcting misinformation about some aspect in Japanese life and culture. Procedure: Have one row of students read out the following comments to their partners (who is not allowed to see the prompt). Students read and write down what their partners says |
Prompts concerning Japanese food: 1. Japanese put a lot of ketchup on natto. 2. I heard most Japanese have five bowls of miso soup in the morning. 3. Always put salt on your sashimi. 4. Make lots of noise when you are eating udon or steak; it' s normal. 5. Always eat half of what is put on your plate; otherwise, people will think you eat like a pig. |
|
How About Discourse Role-Play Tasks |
Socialization: The focus is on responding to invitations and ideas. Procedure: This is done in groups of 3; one student is a reader and decides which response is best. |
Classmate: uim Cook, American, 19) Comment: "Say I heard that many families like to get together during Shogatsu and go to three temples. Can I join you and your family?" -- Student Response -- Comment: "It would be such a wonderful opportunity to go with someone' s family -- and to videotape everything too!" -- Student Response -- |
|
Explain It Again Oral Discourse Completion Tasks |
Socialization: The idea here is that students will try to help a foreigner out by explaining the background of some game, cultural convention, concept, etc. Procedure: Teachers read a loud a situation to a group of students who then state how they would respond. This can also be done on tape with students giving their best response. |
Susan Heverston, New Zealand, JET at Fukui High. 1. "I' d like to learn a Japanese game to impress my friends. Some friend tried to tell me, but I just didn't understand. What do you think is the easiest game, and can you teach me?" Bill Hapner, British, businessman, Tokyo. 2. "I just can't understand which game is harder: Gomokunaraabe or Igo, and why?" Richard Nichols, 34, American Tourist. 3. "A friend of mine said that video games are very bad for Japanese children since they learn nothing from them. He said that traditional games teach children how to think. How do you feel about this. |
|
Paired Gambits Discourse Self-Assessment Tasks |
Problem-solving: Procedure: In groups of five, students read through various situations and rate how they would do, giving reasons. Students then choose one person to act out how he/she would roleplay the situation. |
" Scene 1 American Friend Role A You know, I think you should meet my [sister /brother]. He/she is very lonely. I know you could make him/her very happy. Your response: _________ [ ] Scale: 1- Very easy 2 - Somewhat challenging 3 - Difficult 4 - Very Problematic It would really mean a lot to her/him if you could go out for a movie and dinner. Your response:_________ [ ] Scale: 1- Very easy 2 - Somewhat challenging 3 -Difficult 4 - Very Problematic |
|
Perhaps Its Best Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Task & written Discourse Completion Task |
Problem-solving: Present students various intercultural issues and optional responses. Also give students a chance to state how they would initiate or respond to the given option. Procedure: Have students read through the various options, marking the best response, as well as writing down what they would say/write in that situation. |
1. Your home stay family keeps taking you to parks, (they love parks), but you find this boring. A) Say nothing because whatever you might say would be insulting. B) Leave a written note about your feelings. C) Say that you don' t like parks. D) Suggest an idea of visiting a museum. E) Give various excuses for not going; find other people who will take you where you want to go. F) Have the son/daughter relay your feelings. My oral/written comment would be: _____________ |
|
You Should Have Said Written Discourse Completion Task |
Conflict-Resolution: The aim here is to have students understand various inappropriate replies and to give better ones. Procedure: Have students in pairs, find out how their partner would respond better to the prompts. There are 2 versions, one for each student. |
Version 1. 1. Someone calls you a cheater during a ball game. But you didn't cheat. So you say: "I am VERY sorry. I better leave." Should have said: _________ 2. Your best friend from Canada doesn't like the way you explain the rules to shogi, so you say: "FINE! If you DON' T like the way I explain, find another teacher." Should have said: _________ |
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website