Hi Jamie!

I remember a guy called Don Maybin in Japan. He used what he called 'pressure teaching'. Don't recommend it myself, but the basic idea was that all the class had to stand up and they couldn't sit down till they had said somethig individually. Got pretty scary towards the end he used to say!

I guess we have to 'build the speaking habit', using games, fun activities, anything to provoke the 'rush' - that feeling that you HAVE to speak. That's why I rate Ken Wilson's improv comedy ideas.

How do you video clips help YOu to get students gping?

Jeremy

Hi Jamie,

thanks very mush fo posing that question about the 'follow-up' tasks at the end of a reading text activity leading into a fruitless discussion.

There's been something of the same conversation going on here in the discussion I got started about the 'fluency paradox'. One contributor has talked about getting students to discuss the moral dilemmas that are raised in e.g. a novel. Interestingly she thought this would be a PRE-reading task. I have some sympathy with the idea that if you can get students involved in the issues they have more chance of getting engaged in the text.

So the question is, I guess, HOW you get students involved in the text (of course...talk about stating the obvious). One way is probably NOT to ask them 'what did you think of the text?', but at least to get some personal reaction and/or to retell the text by taking the role of someone in it, or argue a contrary point of view, or try to imagine what the writer's home might be like, or dicuss the issue taking on the role of a different person or...or...

The thing is most of us aren't much good at instant organised discussion. But teachers CAN make it more interesting by telling students that they can (in discussion) say three things they think about the text, one of which is not true 9e.g. they don't think it) and the other have to guess which one is the unreal one.

There is so much we can do. In my 'fluency' talk (one that I am offering at conceferences at the moment) I talk about tw key features: one is provoking the 'rush' - that moment when you HAVE tyo speak even when you are frightened of doing so.  Tis can happen through humour, drama, strangeness, anything.

The other is giving stduents time to activate their 'inner voice' - mumble time etc etc.

I think a straightforward discussion at the end of a reading sequence is often destined for failure; as teachers we have to work out how to provoke the 'rush' - and give stduents time to work out what to say.

So much more to....er...say!

Jeremy

Hi Jamie,

Yes, I’m with you (and I’m sure lots of others are too). You’re right, the way that high TTT is discouraged particularly in initial training courses sends a misleading message, and ’quality’ TTT can be one of the best sources of text—the organic spoken text, as you say. And this can (seemingly paradoxically) be one key to getting those silent students to speak.

Reflecting on my own experience as a learner (many languages, many contexts), and my observations of learners of English, I think there are few things more gratifying and comforting for many learners than understanding the teacher through a sustained piece of speech, about something real—about their own experience for instance. I remember in one of the few Hungarian lessons I ever attended, talking to—rather listening to—the teacher after the lesson as she told me about her holiday on a farm somewhere, I felt a thrill at following pretty much everything she said. I felt my mind racing to do a number of different things:

• acknowledge my understanding of and interest in what she was saying
• ask questions to clarify something I had only partially understood
• ask questions to get more detail about something interesting
• gather up and retain a few chunks of language for later use
• take my own brief turn at relating a holiday experience—and I mean brief
• generally, to sustain the social dynamic that enabled us to interact as individuals and that provided me with input on which I felt I could build output.

I don’t imagine that all learners feel this when we talk to them comprehensibly, but I do believe the general feeling of gratification and motivation is common, and that this can become a foundation for breaking the silence that you refer to at the beginning of this discussion, i.e by teaching students some of the exponents needed to carry out the interventions I mention above (’That’s interesting’, ’One thing isn’t clear to me...’ ’Can I ask...?’ ’That reminds me...’) and by structuring one’s ’organic spoken text’ so that learners are encouraged and guided to make these interventions.

That’s a rather cursory way to sum up a category of procedure that can fill books, but as you say, there’s a LOT to say about this.

steve

PS - Hey Jeremy, I remember Don Maybin as well... I saw him demonstrate some of his techniques for 'forcing' speaking back in.. '89? '90...?

Good question, and a complex one that varies so much according to context, culture, etc...

However, one method I have explored for getting students to speak up is to - well, stop speaking myself.

I blogged about this recently in a post I called Silent Periods can also be good for teachers.

The excellent Darren Elliott over on The Lives of Teachers blog then went one better and posted two great accounts of giving his students the silent treatment in Japan: A class with no teacher and then the great follow up A class with no teacher part 2 - feedback and reflection.

Worth checking out/thinking about!

Cheers,

- Jason

Hi Everybody,

These last couple of postings regarding the use of silence remind me of a great bit of research (I'll call it a quasi-factoid, as I can't recall where I read it, and if anyone can tell me I'll buy them a beer on the shores of Balaton, airfare not included), which said that a non-native speaker takes about 4 seconds to respond to a prompt, while a native speaker takes about three-quarters of a second. Now of course one can assault this and say it depends on level and context (group or individual) and complexity of prompt and what constitutes a "reponse", but the fact remains that we as native and/or fluent users of English are probably programmed to expect a response to a question we ask within a second, and after that we feel this wave of awkwardness... at which point we start talking again, filling in the silence. The implications for the classroom are obvious-- that if we don't wait, we might miss a thousand chances for our students to speak.  When I first heard this I used it in teaching immediately: when I asked a question of the class, I sat and counted in my head, 'One thousand, two thousand, three thousand, four thousand...' (actually I counted Mississippis, but that's a cultural reference that might violate ELT Community rules), and sure enough, more often than not a response came, and in many cases students momentarily took over (a traumatic experience for the control freak I once was).

I've used this in training a lot, in that I've simply suggested to teachers who have problems with students talking to do the same. It's one of those simple things that turns out to be quite powerful.

steve

Hi Jason,

yes, I loved your 'silence' post over on your blog. It IS just a question of shutting up, isn't it. Though TTT is one of the most valuable things a teacher can provide in the classroom, I think?

Jeremy