Humanising Language Teaching
Year 5; Issue 1; January 03

How and Why EFL activities evolve

by Phil Dexter and Richard Cooper

In many teacher training publications available to the EFL teacher, the comment oft repeated is 'use these ideas, experiment with them and change them to suit your situation'. Yet while most 'Teachers Resource Books' (CUP, Longman, OUP and so on) are solidly based on practical experience, few showcase this 'experimentation and change' process that teacher/practitioners inevitably engage in. It is this taking-it-further territory that we wish to explore in this and forthcoming articles in order to track where this unsung creativity leads us. And it is a webzine such as HLT that can provide the voice and medium for us to set out on this exploration.

How do people learn? How are ideas on the learn–teach–learn continuum transmitted? And who controls this process – 'experts' (by which we mean materials writers, publishers and others 'methodologists') or practitioners/teachers at the 'chalk face'? Today, of course, the 'chalk face' can be a class/training room, a conference, a magazine, the internet. In our case, it is a magazine on the internet, trying to reproduce the discussion of a classroom, staffroom or café.

Our Chosen Activity Frames

Some activity frames, such as the gap fill or dictation, have seemingly been with language teaching since time immemorial. It's hard to imagine language training material without them. Not to say it cannot be done, it can, but sidestepping these basic activities frames takes conscious effort. An equally conscious effort is transforming a tried and true but somehow insufficient activity frame until it meets our notions about effective teaching and learning. Changes in methodology are a response to these polarities: the creation of alternatives to a widespread norm, or the reworking of the norm.

It's also evident that we have learnt languages (since they have been consciously taught) based on all sorts of methodologies and clearly 'good' methodology is not the only factor in 'success' in language learning. As we're concerned with the learning process we consider it appropriate to focus here on activities that are 'as old as the hills'. Partly because they are so often used and partly because they clearly 'work'. We also have clear evidence of ongoing transformation of these activities in present day published materials.

One question that arises for us is, where do these changes in methodology actually happen? Is the frontline of change at the level of marketed methodologies, or is it rather found somewhere behind these lines, at the level of the practitioner? Take the example of automotive design: changes that make a car faster, more silent, or safer, reach the public having been incorporated into design at the level of the company. The “publisher” of better cars is not the driver but the manufacturer. We could say the same thing about toasters, computers, pencils, furniture. To be sure innovation goes on out there outside the realm of the factory. Henry Ford may have invented much about how to make cars faster and cheaper and incorporated many things that would appeal to consumers, but he couldn't conceive of everything the consumers wanted, like, for example, different colour cars. But ultimately an innovation gets “published” and that is how it gets transmitted to other users. This argument here about innovation is of course grossly simplified. But perhaps the reader recognizes a little something in it about the transmission of new ideas on our globalizing planet. How does this reflection on innovation concern English language teaching? We would argue that unlike the items mention above, English language teaching does not innovate in the same way. While obviously new ideas do get published and do get used by practitioners, who see these publications and put the innovations to use, we think the innovation does not stop at the published word's door. Innovation in language teaching takes place actually a few levels further, at the level of adaptation of those innovations, in the classroom. The question is, do these innovations actually make it back to the publisher? If not, who considers them as truly innovations?

We consider that they definitely are and would like to put forward an idea about the way fundamental activities get better in the teaching of EFL. As likely as not, our idea has already been elaborated upon somewhere in worldwide reaches of EFL writings and discussions, a notion that would not disappoint us or surprise us in the slightest. Activities which are the most widely used in EFL are in the end not framed by published methodologists, but are the work of countless variations, accomplished generally without printed fanfare. They are variations upon an activity that accord with teaching circumstances, teaching styles and so on. “Progress” in materials development is not then measured by what is published, but somehow by the preponderance of variation that go on in classes around the world. Publishers through the eyes and ears of their representatives and touring published authors are also on the lookout for these innovators. Teaching magazines run columns contributed by teachers from far and wide. But is it at this grassroots level where methodology cuts the edge? Or does it remain, like the image of innovating automobiles, at the level of the factory publisher? We firmly believe that it is not primarily at 'factory level' and this is why we would like to receive contributions from HLT readers on how you perceive this innovation.

Models, journeys and revelations!

Whatever the model, the journey teaching ideas and their adaptations travel reveals a lot about the learning process. Or rather, the journey reveals the subjective understanding of that learning process on the part of practitioners who coin or more generally re-jig an activity. Indeed, while learning itself seemingly changes little down the ages, paradigms about describing learning are in continuous flux. And not just one linear 'evolution', but many threads of evolution are reflected in the practice and flux of countless teaching contexts. We might say that these shifts are built upon the persistence of certain fundamental activity frames that in themselves provide the basis upon which rest the pursuits in variation, in appropriateness and in pure invention. And to what extent do these reflect a deeper understanding of the learning process?

Our Objective

Over the next three articles, we will be looking at what we take to be examples of persistent, fundamental ELT activities such as dictation, gap fills and even the amorphic 'conversation class', and then at the wake of variation they have created. As you read our reflections on these questions, please allow your thoughts to wander as to variations of these activities you use in your teaching. It is the nature of the variation that reflects one's understanding of the persistent activity, as well as one's own training. We will be offering our commentary on the subject, but we especially hope to have your thoughts as well as examples of the wide variety of variation that you use in your own work. We would also like you, the reader, to consider what your experience tells us about the learning process.

Metaphors toward deeper understanding

Before we get to a couple of our detailed practical activities that 'have travelled' please indulge with the authors a little longer. The journey can be further developed through metaphor – a framework we feel which can describe our journeys best of all…

Firstly, an archaeologist is fond of digging up old relics, bones, foundations, clues to a former time, to another way of living and of being. Why is that? Is it purely academic research (whatever that means) or is there something in those old bones that has meaning in trying to understand ourselves? We have begun to dig up ELT fossils such as 'gap fills' and 'dictation'. And in so doing we have found old and dusty dictation, as well as the diggings, variations and thoughts on teaching offered in Dictations New Methods, New Possibilities. For many readers, this book has led to new excavations of their own.

As the years pass, perhaps these variations will disappear themselves beneath the abundance of change till future teachers dig them up all over again in search of new ideas in old bones or simply in search of themselves. And perhaps understanding the 'fossil record' of activities such as dictation could help us to trace a methodological genealogy and in so doing give insight to how learners learn and what motivates teachers to improve their methodologies.

Secondly, in the early days of cinema and film (and perhaps until quite recently), the filmmaking process was the province of the very few people who worked on the making of films. The technical know-how was tightly controlled by these 'experts'. Looking at the credits at the end of a new film, for example Monsters, Inc., Minority Report, or Matrix, we find hundreds of different crafts listed. Nonetheless, the marketing behind the digital camera and its software editing packages is that if you have the gumption you can be making movies too. Is the essence of a movie in the plying of hundreds of crafts or simply in the presence of a camera and a story to tell?

Is there a message here for language teaching? Who are the experts now? Who controls methodology? Has the teacher in fact always held the camera? Or are the publications of methods and activities the real marketplace of activities, the 'top'-down distribution of ideas? Was it always that way? When did methodology migrate to the province of 'experts' and publishers away from teachers who receive and repurpose activities in their classrooms? Has there even been such a migration? In fact, did it migrate to experts or have experts always dominated? On the other hand, was methodology 'invented' to some extent by publishers?

The dictation activities

In this first article we will focus on dictation. Let's take out our instruments, cameras or archaeologist's brush, and consider variations on dictation in some detail. What ideas do you have while reading them? Note them down. What do these thoughts tell you about teaching, about the way you teach and about the persistence of certain activity frames? Note them down too. And please share these ideas with HLT. We will collate a wide sampling of these variations for the next article. It could be interesting to see how ideas, from a single source multiply and adapt.

Co-operative Open Dictation – Phil's Exploration.

First encounter

I first encountered this activity, which I call 'Co-operative Open Dictation', during a late afternoon session at a conference in Bulgaria in 1992 facilitated by Mario Rinvolucri. I was intrigued by the activity – partly because I thought that for me it didn't work very well! But I thought, it was an activity worth exploring. I've used this activity with lots of different age groups and different language levels. I have also transformed this activity as I have experienced and dabbled with different methodological approaches. Sometimes there are activities that are just made for particular learning approaches. In recent years I have been attracted to approaches such as Neuro Linguistic Programming and Multiple Intelligences. However, these approaches are basically descriptions of intelligence and learning processes and practical applications of them have been rather thin on the ground. Initially, I used the idea as Mario/Paul described it in 'Dictation' Davis/Rinvolucri, CUP, 1988, 'Half the story', p.81.

Activity as described in Dictations New Methods, New Possibilities.

Half the story

This is an exercise in shared story construction. Dictate the sentences below, and give the instructions in parentheses using a different tone of voice. Giovanni
Giovanni was having a rather heated exchange with his history teacher. She was getting more and more upset. (Please write the first few lines of the conversation.)

When Giovanni got home he went into the kitchen and said hello to his Mum. (Please describe her.)

She called the family to table and they all sat down to eat. It didn't take long for Giovanni's Mum and Dad to start arguing. (Write their argument.)

Giovanni couldn't stand it any longer. He left the table and went upstairs, banging the dining-room door behind him. When he got into his room he shut the door and put on some music. (Draw the music.)

© Cambridge University Press 1988

Ask the students to read their stories to one another in pairs or small groups.

Through time and experience, although I have kept closely to the original Rinvolucri/Davis frame, the activity has become as follows:-

Lesson Frame

All about John

John was walking along the road after school when he met Elaine at the bus stop. He stopped to talk to her. They talked about the lesson on the environment that they had this afternoon. (With a partner, write the first 6 lines of the dialogue/conversation that they had).

They said goodbye and John made his way home. On his way home he took a short cut through the park.

(The following questions are read allowed twice and then learners are asked to answer three or four of their choice).

What did he find in the park? What did he see? Did he meet anyone else? Did he hear anything? What smells where there? What was he thinking about? Birds and animals were moving about. What birds and animals? What were they doing? What different types of plants and trees were there?

John arrived home at................................o'clock. (complete the gap) His mother had been expecting him home ages ago. Describe John's mother and draw a picture of her (if you wish).

John went straight to his bedroom. Describe John's room. Design an outline of the room using cuisenaire rods.

He rings his best friend. Write out the conversation in pairs and act it out.

He wrote his entry in his diary and listened to some music. Write the entry of the diary for the day and decide what music he was listening to?

He thinks about what is he is going to do in school tomorrow. What does he think about?

Commentary

The process is fairly self-explanatory shifting from 'straight' dictation in bold to student tasks in bold italics. The principle involved in this activity is that through a fairly structured teacher directed frame there is enough space for learners to insert their own framework. In fact, the controlled/open frame actually creates the possibilities for maximum response from the learners. Sometimes learners work alone, sometimes in pairs and other times in groups. Multiple Intelligence research has identified different intelligences such as 'linguistic', 'logical mathematical', 'kinaesthetic', 'visual/special', 'naturalist', 'interpersonal' and 'intrapersonal'. This activity has, therefore, now become a practical 'multiple intelligence' activity. A recent development has been to introduce a 'tactile' approach with cuisenaire rods in describing John's room. This actually provides a complete activity switch where learners in groups have to discuss with each other and then describe their rooms to other groups.

The final activity is for learners to read out their texts to each other – this is important in order to see the differences' in the text. The theoretical assumption that I'm exploring is whether or not learners are accessing their strong 'intelligences' through such an activity. It's quite a long activity – it takes me at least 45 minutes – but as with all classroom time judgements the only question worth answering is – is the time spent worth it? For me, the time is important for learners to make these judgements on how to 'they' respond to this activity.

This activity has, I feel, taken on a new direction from the original. How have others used this? How has it developed? In what way have other developments connected with mine and what way are they different. Is this a kind of 'Darwinian' approach to methodology? Has the species survived? In what form? And how is the new species an advance on what has gone before……..?

The Messenger and the Scribe – Rick's Exploration Activity as described in in Dictations New Methods, New Possibilities

Post copies of the text on the front wall of the classroom or out in the corridor. Here is an example:
The Wise Judge
This story took place in China.
A crowd of people gathered round an acrobat.
Suddenly a man who sold fried doughnuts shouted, 'My purse, where's my purse? Thief! Thief!' The doughnut seller pointed to a man who sold hats and said, 'It's him - he'sthe thief.'
The hat seller said, 'No, no, I didn't take your coins.' A judge was passing by that way and heard the two men shouting. He listened to both men and then said, 'Bring me a bowl of water.' The judge took a coin from every woman and man in the crowd. How did he find the thief?
© Cambridge University Press 1988

Pair the students off and designate one in each pair as the 'scribe' and the other as the 'messenger'. The messenger goes and reads from the wall, brings back as much as she can remember, and dictates it to the scribe. Often in the course of the activity, a messenger will get fed up with her partner's slowness as scribe and grab the pen herself. If this happens have the scribe become the messenger. Encourage this role switch anyway about half way through the exercise. Finally have your students work in groups and decide how the judge identified the thief.

Messenger and the scribe, revisited

First encounter

I can no longer remember whether I first met this exercise in book form or in a workshop, but it is my guess it was a workshop, because seeing the activity in action is learning by doing taken to a new level. I also suspect many teachers share my affection for this activity. First of all, Messenger and Scribe is a group energizer like few others. It produces a focused sense of solidarity in the classroom, a sort of roll up your sleeves, whistle while you work ethic. And all this kinaesthetic group buzz aside, there's also sound pedagogical underpinning to it: the activity offers practice of the four skills all neatly under one activity roof. Thirdly, like a universal tool, Messenger and Scribe revises all kinds of texts, from coursebook to newspaper clippings to poetry to film transcripts. The fun and benefits are not limited to language classrooms: teacher training groups typically come away with a similar impact. Few activities bundle so many diverse benefits within such a relatively simple mechanism.

Lesson frame

What makes this activity so special? Like the prototypic dictation activity, Messenger and Scribe calls for two roles, “dictator” and “dictatee”. But the beauty of the activity kicks in straightaway when the learners replace the teacher as “dictator”. Moreover, the two roles are interchangeably and completely learner-driven (even the choice of text can easily be learner driven). The class is divided into pairs, each with a separate text to work on. The messengers are the “dictators” and do the travelling to read text pinned or blu-takked far from the scribe (this is the source, by the way, of my moniker for activity, “Off the Wall Dictation”). No shouting or gesturing from textside is allowed. The messenger must return to the scribe and phrase by phrase, in whatever chunk sizes he/she can manage, dictate to the scribe. The messenger is free to make as many trips as necessary. The scribe can ask questions for clarification which can also send the messenger back. This common yet dovetailing sense of purpose, together with the hustle and bustle, is perhaps the fundamental genius as to why the activity is so much fun. When the dictation is completed, learners can either swap roles right away and go for a new text, or check the results of their first efforts.

Commentary

One aim of the proto dictation activity, where the teacher dictates a prechosen text and all the learners take dictation of that one text, is to assess the learners' ability to hear words properly, and to spell properly those they hear. In this form the activity remains essentially confined to evaluation mode, losing much leeway for reinforcing skills and knowledge through exploiting any crop of errors made by the learners. In the Rinvolucri/Davis version, however, learner “errors” offer insight as to how language is transported by the messenger, the sort of grammatical, lexical “noise” in the transmission expressed as error. The scribe's dictation errors are equally useful. Thus errors, rather than being mostly a means of evaluation, are engaging windows onto the crux of language processing.

How have I adapted Messenger and Scribe to my classroom? One, I am rigorous about not allowing the messengers to see what the scribes are writing. I do this to ensure they get full benefit from any errors made at the two levels of transcription. Two, I emphasize the hectic common project work aspect of the activity by scattering texts along all the walls, so that the classroom becomes a crossroads of purposes. Three, I give the students full liberty to choose the texts from the wall: I typically put up newspaper texts from the day's press, short poems, topic related bits I will want to draw upon in a later phase of the day's work, and so on. Four, I encourage the students to be thorough in the checking of their work, and to report to the class the kind of errors that arose. Five, I sometimes have both roles played by both partners at the same time: the papers remains on a desk and both are messenger (makes for even more creative chaos in the centre of the room!) and scribe. Six, I have used computers rather than paper; afterwards, students make worksheets of these texts to share with their colleagues. It is interesting feedback in its own right to see what sort of activity frames the learners' use when empowered to create activities themselves.

What variations do you the reader regularly use for Messenger and Scribe? How has the activity changed in your classroom? What are the aims you are getting at with your adaptations? Our purpose in this article is to track how methodology takes a common source and advances it to meet the needs and possibilities of one's own teaching circumstances. We are convinced that the real evolution of EFL methodology goes on mostly outside High Street publications, in the classrooms of everyday practitioners. So let's shake things up. Let's tap into the real crucible of new ideas, the commons area of language training methodology, reflected in the variety of teachers and teaching circumstances HLT reaches.

What comes next?

As with all articles (and as we argue, all activities), this one is work in progress. We're exploring ideas about learning and processes within the ELT profession. We feel intuitively, that this exploration is necessary but we can only really make this journey with you the reader, you the active practitioning teacher or trainer. If you would like to comment on our thoughts, provide other examples of these activities or other activities that you have transformed please contact us at the email addresses below.

richardcooper@attglobal.net
phil.dexter@post.hinet.hr