Hayama
Listening & Speaking Courses Discussion Group
Saturday July 10 2004
Mark Furr, Andy Martin, Mike Nix, Mary Jo Pichette, Ian Platt, Matthew Webb, and William Zhanje joined this session.
These notes were prepared by
Mike Nix, with comments from Andy Martin.
The session began with Mike
talking through his approach to the Basic Discussion Skills course in the first
semester this year, and presenting examples of work from 5 students of average
or above-average ability in the class. He described three cycles of work from
the first semester:
¥ an initial 3 week cycle
focusing on the development of communicative confidence and fluency through
discussion and presentation of studentsÕ language learning histories;
¥ a second 6 week cycle of
research, discussion and presentation on Martin Luther King focusing on the
development of note-taking, mind-mapping, and vocabulary learning skills;
¥ a final 3 week cycle of
research, discussion and presentation in which students used the skills from
the second cycle to look at a Ôfamous personÕ of their choice.
Discussion then span off into a
range of issues summarized below (including, but not limited to, the original
question for the session Ð the appropriacy of the Listening & Speaking exit
objectives).
The session ended with the
group preparing a poster summary of the discussion, which is reproduced at the
end of these notes:
Some issues which came up:
The Ôdo-abilityÕ of this
kind of project work for teachers
á
Is it possible for part-time teachers to check/monitor/give
feedback on the studentsÕ weekly note-taking, mind-mapping, etc, in these
project cycles??? (Matthew).
á
One suggestion for a manageable way of monitoring studentsÕ work
is to collect it at the start of the class (perhaps whilst students are in pair
conversations) and do a 5 minute check Ð enough time to get a quick sense of
how students are progressing but not to put comments/suggestions on their work
(Mary Jo).
This discussion raised
questions about:
In the cycles of work Mike
presented, peer models from other students of different ways of note-taking,
mind-mapping, etc, were the main support given to students to help them develop
these skills.
á
Can students adequately develop their research, discussion &
presentation skills without more explicit skills instruction and
feedback/correction of their work? If this kind of input from teachers is
necessary, it (i) requires more time, and (ii) raises questions about:
We felt the course exit
objectives themselves were a good framework for developing studentsÕ research,
discussion, and presentation skills, butÉ
á
Some of us had questions about whether it is possible to cover all
the objectives adequately in a one-year, one-class-a week course.
á
Several participants said they focused much more on presentation
work than on discussion, or on gathering, analysing and explaining information
than on formal presentation skills, given the time constraints.
There seemed to be two
interpretations of the objective for giving a prepared presentation, and two
related approaches to doing presentation work in class:
á
One focuses on teacher directed development of specific
presentation skills (talking not reading, making eye contact, body language,
structuring and using discourse markers in presentations) before students begin
to present on more academic content later in the year, so that the first
semester would be mainly focused on discrete skills and engagement with content
would be secondary (Matthew).
á
The other focuses on students being able to communicate and
explain their research and ideas to other students, with less emphasis on
developing formal academic presentation skills.
|
Comments from Andy Martin: á
Are these two objectives so different that they canÕt both be
addressed? á
Besides, Mike, no one clearly laid out their objectives with all
the steps they go through in class that enable these objectives to be
achieved. As a result the impression given by some teachers was that they
focus on giving formal presentations, with the Le Beau book being their main
resource. Thus, eye contact, gestures and the use of notes to enable the
students to talk for 8-12 minutes seemed to be the primary objective. á
The fact that these teachers did not mention the importance of
having the other students actively listen in order to discuss the topic
presented does not mean that this doesn't happen. However, I felt some
teachers were emphasizing formal
presentation skills, perhaps at the expense of Active Listening (the capitals
are intentional), where the listeners taking notes, even interrupting the
presenter to ask for clarification. . á
I feel that both the presenter and the listeners have different
but equally important responsibilities; the presenter has to ensure that the
people s/he is presenting to; the
listeners can understand the topic. This can only be done by a
competent command of speaking skills which suggests there is an important
role for elements of presentation skills ( though IÕm not sure if ÔformalÕ is
the right term ) including speaking clearly, use of repetition and
emphasizing and explaining key language. The use of posters can greatly
assist the presenter in getting the key points of his or her presentation
topic across. á
They should not rush through their presentation; Pacing,
learning when to pause is necessary too. á
The listeners also the responsibility to ensure that they
understand the presentation by note taking, and use of clarification
strategies. á
To motivate both speaker and listener to do the above, the goal
of the presentation should be followed by a discussion which should include
the question Ôwhy did you choose this topic? Also peer and self evaluation of
the presentation is important. By trial and error, the students will find
out, perhaps the hard way that the topic they choose and the way they present
it determines how well it is evaluated by others and how successful it is in
generating a discussion. á
Comments from peers plus their own reflection about to what
extent they had succeeded are needed to help them improve in their
presentation and discussion management skills. á
The success stories related certainly offered compelling
evidence for the importance of being able to give a presentation. However, I
feel that in stressing formal presentation skills with being able to stand in
front of a group of people and speak for up to 12 minutes from notes while
employing the full resources of public speaking, if the presentation just
ends with applause and the with the listeners pausing only to perhaps grade
the listener on loudness of voice, eye contact, gestures etc. then this might
tend to reduce the need for the kind of purposeful listening I discussed
above. If this is the case thenI have to say I have some reservations about
the overemphasis on presentation if follow-up discussion is left out. á
Is it the case that most job interviews require applicants to give
an on the spot presentations? Somehow I doubt this. á
In any case, I donÕt regard, giving a formal presentation and
giving a presentation with a more active role for the listeners followed by a
discussion as mutually exclusive objectives. á
I have a highly fluent returnee in my class. So far he his
presentations are unsuccessful because he tends to not only choose rather
obscure topics, he compounds the difficulty by not simplifying the topic or
making it relevant to his listeners. The last topic he presented was about
the role of the National Trust in the UK. By concentrating on the activities
of this organization in the UK without proposing a role for such an
organization in Japan, or leading a discussion on this or other issues
arising he ended up only delivering a monolog scarely understood by his
listeners. This student who is now in his second year tells me that he has
already taken a presentation class where all the students, one at a time
stood up in front of the entire class and gave presentations. In attempting
to the same in front of a group of three to four students, he delivers a
monolog (which he mostly read out ) that his listeners clearly couldnÕt understand. |
á
For example, Mark said he does less formally ÔacademicÕ
presentations with some of his other classes, but he understood the Chuo course
exit objective of giving a Ôprepared presentationÕ as implying the practice of
discrete presentation skills. Mike, on the other hand, explained that he
understood a Ôprepared presentationÕ as involving students reporting and
explaining the content of their research, note-taking and mind-mapping.
A possible response to this is
to clarify and separate the two approaches within the overall curriculum
framework, as: (i) work on formal academic skills such as presentation and *debate
in other specialist (Advanced) classes; and (ii) a focus on developing
confidence in communication and discussion of content in Listening &
Speaking classes. Hence the ÔOne course or two? question on the poster.
|
Comments from Andy Martin: á
I feel that trying to separate out two approaches is unnecessary
because they should both be taught. In both the Basic Discussion Skills
classes and the specialist /Advanced classes, the objectives ought to be
similar. The only difference being a matter of degree; in the specialist /
advanced classes, they are perhaps focusing on a narrower content, ie global
issues, or law and order. Also their ability to give a presentation and organize a discussion ought to be of
a higher standard. á
*Is discussion the same as debate? If by debate, debate with a
capital ÔDÕ is intended, I would be interested to hear how this form of
debate could be incorporated into the objectives. If by debate we mean a
motion proposed with two teams one arguing for the motion, the other arguing
against with both teams spending a considerable amount of time to research
the facts to support their argument then this objective would require a very
sizable chunk of class time, if not a separate class in order to teach the
students to do this properly. |
On reflection, this also
(perhaps) suggests:
á
The development of academic literacy for Law Faculty students can
be interpreted as either (i) students developing formal skills for the genres
of academic work in English or (ii) students becoming able to confidently and
critically research, explain and discuss social, political and legal issues
that interest them.
|
Comment from Andy Martin: á
IÕm not so sure that these two objectives are so very different
that it becomes an Ôeither A or B situation. |
á
Further development and co-ordination of the curriculum framework,
and our teaching and collaboration, may need us to explore these differences
more in future.
á
One insight from the Retreat, then, is that different teachers are
reading and interpreting the same exit objectives in different ways. Exploring
these differences of interpretation further is perhaps a good way of clarifying
the curriculum framework that we now have on paper.
Leveling in Listening &
Speaking classes
á
Student levels seem to be more even, and appropriate to course
objectives, in English 2.4 Listening & Speaking classes (which are placed
by TOEIC scores) this year. Within classes, there is a big difference along
gender lines, with female students generally much more communicative than male
students (Ian).
á
Levels in English A.B classes (where students choose their own
level) are more variable, with a few students wildly over-estimating their
level (Andy).
Finally, we ended with someÉ.
Success stories
Mark and Matthew both reported
on students who had found the work they had done in their Listening &
Speaking, and other English classes, at Chuo very useful beyond Chuo. In MarkÕs
case, two of his students had been asked to prepare and give presentations in
English as a part of a job interview, and had been able to do so successfully.
One of MatthewÕs students had spent a year studying abroad at university in
Britain and had found the work done in MatthewÕs class extremely useful for
academic study in English.