Helping Learners Develop Communication
Strategies
by Michael Rost
University of California, Berkeley
English Language Program |
The following is a summary of the Plenary Address to be delivered
by Michael Rost to the JALT Fukuoka Bookfair to be held on Sunday, January
26, 1997 from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm at the Fukuoka International School, 18-50
Momochi 3-chome, Sawara-ku, Fukuoka.
Like most language teachers and language education researchers, I have
continuously searched for metaphors to help me better understand communication
and the ways that second language communication can be taught. Perhaps the
most powerful metaphor for me has been the notion of "intervening"
when the learner is at the point of noticing something new or making a decision
about what to do.
For me, the key to understanding the importance of intervention in oral
communication is the notion of "real time" language processing.
What a learner can do with a second language "in real time" -
in face-to-face interaction with another speaker - is usually dramatically
different from what the same learner can do "off line" - often
with reference materials in hand and with opportunities for private analysis
and revision. In "real time," the learner must utilize knowledge
strategically in order to maximize available memory resources and
the learner must solve problems as they emerge.
I was recently reminded of this real-time vs. off-line performance disparity
with a group of Japanese university students in a conversation course at
the University of California. I had asked the students before each class
to write out a 50-word paragraph informally stating their views about a
chosen topic. (This method allows the students time to think about their
point of view and plan what to say, and, equally importantly, it also commits
them to information or an opinion that they can not easily abandon under
the pressure of the conversation.)
For one class, the topic was:
Who had a greater influence on you - your mother or your father? Why?
One student, a Hiroko S., had written:
My mother had a greater influence to me. Why? Because she is so bright-eyed
and wonders many things. Sometimes she asks many questions, like she is
a little child, and she doesn't care that she is adult. I like this. Yes,
she influenced me this way.
The conversation task was to read your partner's paragraph, ask for elaboration
and examples, then summarize orally what your partner said. Since Hiroko
had no partner, I worked with her. The first part of our conversation (which
I tape recorded) went like this:
S: (7 seconds silence) Um . . . mother.
T: Right, your mother. You say she's bright-eyed. That's interesting. Can
you explain that a bit?
S: (5 seconds silence) My mother?
T: Yes. What do you mean when you say she's bright-eyed?
S: (7 seconds silence, looks confused)
T: Here, in your paper (showing paper), you say, "She is so bright-eyed
and wonders many things."
S: (5 seconds silence) Yes.
T: Can you give me an example?
S: Example?
T: Yeah. Yeah. Can you give me an example to show me what your mother's
like.
S: Like? Oh, she likes many things.
We went on a little longer and it became clear that I was not going to
find out anything more from Hiroko than what she had written. Indeed, it
seemed as if the longer the conversation went on, the less
I understood about Hiroko's ideas. I think Hiroko was just as frustrated
as I was that she could not manage the conversation, that she could not
respond to me the way she wanted, and that she could not get her ideas
across effectively.
Why is there such a gap between what Hiroko can communicate in writing
on her own (given ample time) and what she can communicate orally (in "real
time")? Although we could argue that she "just needs more practice,
"a more pointed explanation is that she lacks "procedural knowledge."
Although she "knows" English well enough to communicate and exchange
ideas, she is unable to process language quickly enough to manage the conversation
socially and to accomplish her communication goals. She needs to
learn procedures - to enact strategies - to help her manage her conversations
more proactively and effectively.
The "real time" communication problems that Hiroko faces are
common for all learners. Most learners, unfortunately, never get proper
help in making choices and trying out strategies that can assist them consistently
in face-to-face conversations. Instead, they feel they need to (or are told
to) "study" more vocabulary and grammar, "memorize"
more conversation models, and "practice" speaking faster in
order to avoid these difficulties in the future.
Of course, there is an important role for study, memorizing, and
practice in language learning. But I have come to believe that one of the
key purposes of communicative language instruction is to help learners anticipate
and deal with conversation management problems, not to prevent
them or avoid them.
Based on the work of Bialystok (1990), Rost and Ross (1991), and Bremer,
Broeder, Roberts, Simonot, and Vasseur (1995), I have compiled for my students
some of the strategies that are generally recognized to assist most learners
at different levels of proficiency. These strategies can be classified by
purpose:
Message strategies - to help the learner control and understand
the messages in the conversation:
- clarify unfamiliar words and concepts (preferably words and concepts
that are judged to be key ones); clarify the procedures and purpose of
the conversation; ask questions (preferably specific questions) about unclear
ideas in the conversation; rephrase ideas of the other speakers.
Response strategies - to help the learner express his/her emotions
satisfactorily:
- respond to the speaker personally, try to "connect with"
the speaker, show hesitation and misunderstanding when necessary, express
an opinion, give honest, emotional responses as feedback to the speaker;
agree or disagree when appropriate.
Initiation strategies - to help the learner get his or her ideas
across effectively:
- get the floor, keep your speaking turn, interrupt when necessary, change
the topic when necessary, backtrack when necessary, introduce new information
and ideas, expand the conversation; confirm that other speakers understand
our information and ideas.
What I have tried to do in oral communication classes is to introduce
these three classes of strategies, demonstrate them (with both positive
and negative examples), help students observe and recognize them, and help
students realize when they can use them. My techniques and terminology for
introducing communication strategies, demonstrating and practicing them
vary considerably, but the principles remain fairly constant. In any oral
communication class, I try to do the following:
- Contextualize: In the context of communication tasks, I allow the students
to experience a conversation which does not work well (e.g., the conversation
between Hiroko and me above).
- Observe: I ask the students what went wrong - was it a problem of "controlling
the messages," "responding," or "initiating"?
- Demonstrate: I attempt to recreate the problem conversation with the
students - with all the problems intact - and let the students identify
the strategy choices the speaker or listener made (or could have made).
- Retry: I ask the students to re-try the conversation, thinking about
their choices for "message," "response," and "initiation."
One of my goals for this kind of class is to get the learners to think
strategically while they are having a conversation. What can I do to
"manage" the message? How can I "respond" better? How
can I "initiate" what I want to say? As students gain more conscious
control over their choices, they become better at managing and understanding
conversations.
Certainly, communication involves more than thinking strategically.
The purpose of helping learners develop communication strategies is not
to supplant the role of building vocabulary, grammar, and discourse knowledge,
but to supplement that knowledge in a way that makes learners feel
more satisfied, and more in control of their own communication and learning.
References
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological
analysis of second language use. London: Blackwell.
Bremer, K., Broeder, P., Roberts, C., Simonot, M. and Vasseur,
M. (1995). Achieving Understanding. London: Longman.
Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner strategies in interaction:
Typology and teachability. Language Learning, 41 (2), 235-273.
Michael Rost, Ph.D. Linguistics, M.A. TESOL, has varied experience
as language teacher, university professor, researcher, author, and teacher
trainer. He is the author of books and articles in Applied Linguistics,
including Introducing Listening (Penguin, 1995). He has also authored ELT
books, including the "Real Time English" series (Longman, 1994-95),
and has been developmental editor for other successful series, including
"Impact" (Lingual House, 1996).
Michael Rost can be contacted at: <mrost@well.com>.
Article
copyright © 1996 by the author.
Document URL: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/96/dec/comstrat.html
Last modified: December 23, 1996
Site maintained by TLT
Online Editor
|