/ .. f,*\~· ~··· M. Celce-Murcia (ed.). (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. IV Rowley, MA: Newbury House. \ 1,), I'>· ------~------I Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching1

Graham Crookes and Craig Chaudron

INTRODUCTION into the classroom and presented by the teacher to students. 3 Or, if language is not Knowledge concerning what goes on in presented, then a skill, a learning strategy, or :i the classroom between teacher and students some aspect of the use of language will be set ~ ·: l .I is obviously the core area of information per­ out for consideration. Second, that which has I· taining to formal second language (SL) teach­ been presented must in addition be learned, d ing and learning. Although knowledge of out­ and the teacher has to arrange matters and J ! ' ' of-class aspects of SL teaching such as needs events to bring this about. The teacher selects analysis, curriculum design, lesson planning, learning activities and facilitates their utiliza­ materials design, and evaluation are neces­ tion. Third, by the very nature of learning, sary for a truly professional operation, at information must be provided to learners times when these must be dealt with mini­ concerning their success-the teacher must mally (as when teaching under difficult cir­ provide knowledge of results, i.e., correction, cumstances), so long as there is a teacher or feedback, to the students. Fourth, all of working with a group of students, the essence these processes take place in a social milieu, of classropm SL teaching is present, and SL and because of the way language functions learning is possible. between individuals, the processes cannot be In this chapter we identify and discuss totally separated from the social climate some of the more important characteristics which develops among students and between and principles of this interaction, most of teacher and students. Finally, although the which derive from a logical analysis of the processes immediately adjacent in time to 2 classroom teaching situation. Our concep­ the lesson (teachers' lesson planning and tion of the teacher is someone faced with a teachers' evaluation of the students' success, great number of decisions to be made at every i.e., testing) are dealt with elsewhere in this moment of classroom instruction. In some book, one more process which is very close cases, research findings can guide those deci­ to the lesson itself will be discussed here. sions. In many others, research can inform Conscientious SL teachers usually come out professional judgment, but decisions must be of a class asking themselves "how the class based on feel rather than knowledge. went"-which is to say, they engage in · However, the decision will -be aided by a a process of self-evaluation. We believe knowledge of the conceptually determined that this is a vital process for professional range of alternatives available. self-development, and one which needs When a second language is to be taught, to be explicitly structured into Sl teach­ a number of major steps must be taken, in ers' routines. We include it here as it is terms of which the chapter is organized. First, an integral part of efficient SL classroom elements of the language must be brought skills.

46 LANGUAGE PRESENTATION implies the importance of practice-that is, output, rather than mere input (cf. Harmer's Meta-planning for Lesson 1983 "balanced activities" approach). Objectives Teachers thus need to remain aware that they are not in the classroom to fill up the time Which elements of a lesson are under­ with the sound of their own voices, but to taken depends on the objectives a teacher has arrange matters so that their students do the in mind to be attained by the lesson. (Such talking (or writing, or listening). Particular~y objectives need not be the ·orthodox 11behav­ in EFL rather than ESL situations, class time is ioral" objectives, it should be noted.) They so valuable that we believe the teacher are then the result of lesson planning, which should get offstage as soon as possible consis­ Purgason's chapter discusses. However, in tent with an adequate presentation of mate­ general terms, the first element of a lesson is rial, and the giving of clear instructions for often the first component of the traditional some practice exercise. (See the section "present-practice-evaluate" sequence which "Class organization.") constitutes many teachers' understanding of Assuming that the instructor decides that basic lesson structure, both within and out­ a given teaching objective calls for some sup­ side SL teaching. port in the way of materials, what then? The Though this is not always necessary, par­ major resource is of course the textbook. In ticularly if the lesson is intended mainly to addition, other teaching aids fall into two practice material already partially learned, let categories (Celce-Murcia, 1979): nontechni­ us assume for present purposes that a teacher cal aids, and technical (projected) aids (not has selected a particular element of language, counting the students themselves, who can of or aspect of language learning, to be pre­ course play a stimulating role in the presen­ sented as the first major stage of a class pe- · tation stages of the lesson). The former are the riod. There are then two main classes of chalkboard, realia, flashcards, magazine pic­ choices to be made: those concerning the tures, charts, and so on. The latter include the physical characteristics of the presentation, overhead projector, audiotape, and video­ that is, materials, use of audiovisual (AV) tape. Both types of aids are considered else­ equipment, etc., and those concerning the where in this book (see the chapter by Brin­ conceptual aspects of the presentation, i.e., ton), so we will not discuss them in detail deductive or inductive, via rules or analogies, here, except to point out that although it is and so on. The former are considered in the obvious that, for example, visual support of a following section, the latter in the section presentation can aid its comprehensibility, by after that. contextualizing the language involved, in most cases the utility of such aidS''appears rarely to have been thought important Modalities (Materials, AV) enough for SL-related investigation (as op­ The increasing quantity and quality of posed to prescription). Whether or not to use published ESL materials means that teachers them, therefore, is usually a matter for indi­ are less and less thrown entirely on their own vidual judgment, supported by general con­ resources, which is undoubtedly a good siderations. Does their use in a given circum­ thing. 4 Without materials, the average stance aid comprehension, for example; does teacher is probably even more likely than it stimulate more student talk than would usual to succumb to the tendency to domi­ have otherwise occurred; above all, does nate the classroom by taking up class time. their use constitute an efficient use of class 5 However, there is increasing recognition of time, particularly taking into account the SL learning as a process of skill acquisition teacher time required to produce them, or the (O'Malley, Chamot, & Walker, 1987), which logistics of setting up and later removing the

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 47 .''f1ill1 . • ~! equipment? It is also a matter where teachers teacher circulates and checks individual per­ in general would benefit from some careful formance. The point is that teachers have full teacher investigation and report concerning right and responsibility to utilize the material success and failure in practice. in whatever way seems appropriate. How­ Perhaps because of the complexity of the ever, we hope they will make use of the find­ question, a similar research vacuum sur­ ings that SL research suggests can be applied rounds the question of how actually to use a here. textbook. For the untrained teacher, a good For example, recent work has stressed the textbook can stand for a syllabus and training role of attention and awareness in SL learning program, while an experienced teacher will (Schmidt, 1990), and the importance of draw­ not hesitate to use the text as an aid, adopting ing the learner's attention to certain charac­ parts, adapting other elements (d. Stevick, teristics of the language which might other­ 1971 ), and dispensing with it completely un­ wise be missed (Rutherford, 1987). It follows, der some circumstances. The utility of the therefore, that the teacher should usually average textbook for a typical present-day present the text or illustrative material with an ESL course is normally unquestioned (but see immediate focus on what the target points All wright, 1981, and O'Nei II, 1982, for po­ are. On the other hand, research over the last sitions on both sides of this point). The com­ decade has made clear that SL learning does plexity of most textbooks defies specific sug­ not take place in a simple linear fashion, with gestions, but we would urge teachers to one linguistic element simply being added to remember that most textbooks are the prod­ the next. In the syntactic domain, learners uct of the pressures of the market, as imper­ proceed at different speeds through fairly reg­ fectly interpreted through the interaction of ular sequences (Pienemann & Johnston, publisher and materials writer. As Ariew 1987, inter alia}. In particular, it is unlikely (1982) mentions, this is why texts (in a given that structural target points will be internal­ period of time) are often very much alike; ized by many in the class after one exposure. market pressures, however, are not the same Consequently, the presentation phase with as educaJional pressures. What sells may not regard to a particular aspect of language be what works; what works may not neces­ should almost certainly come up on other sarily have a format which book-publishing occasions, in other lessons. The accurate de­ companies can utilize or produce. Above all, scription of SL learning as the learning of a therefore, a critical stance is called for (see cognitive skill (O'Malley et al., 1987} implies also Richards, 1984}. the appropriateness of an initial presentation, With regard to the presentation stage, and the inevitability of a first stage of use (the some general points can be made. The main "cognitive stage") which is errorful and dif­ one is that the instructor is, in fact, rather free ficult for the learner. Movement toward auto­ from constraints despite the various proce­ maticity will require a great deal of active, dures suggested by the teachers' notes typi­ realistic practice in the use of the target lan­ cally accompanying the text. Texts designed guage, which may not be particularly suscep­ for beginning and intermediate learners com­ tible to general error correction. Again, at the monly present the material of each unit via a presentation stage, it is relevant to consider dialog, and the teacher is often instructed to what little is known about the learner's devel­ have the students "do" the dialog. This will opment of control over the pragmatic aspects likely involve having the class as a whole, or ofthe SL. This is facilitated by an emphasis on in large sections, repeat the dialog in unison, realistic, communicative language use in the possibly moving on then to partial memoriza­ classroom from an early stage, and also by tion. Perhaps an equally efficient procedure developing the metalinguistic language for some classes would be to have students needed to talk about this aspect of language pair off and read the dialog aloud, while the (Henriksen, 1988; Kasper & House, 1981}.

48 I Teaching Methodology

_I.'" As a final comment, though we have functional and sociolinguistic or pragmatic used the generally accepted term "textbook" aspects of second language use, teachers throughout this section, looking to the future, need to be conversant with the appropriate it may be that the textbook as such will be­ rules of use and should be prepared to present come obsolete. As desktop publishing be­ these to students as they begin to study a comes increasingly available, and particu­ given topic. larly with increased availability of optical Effective language teachers should there­ readers (which can input pictorial material fore not only be aware of developments in directly into word-processed material), it knowledge about acquisitional sequences, seems likely that in-house materials will be­ but they should be able to provide pedagogi­ come increasingly used. The advantages with cally comprehensible, accurate descriptions regard to personalization and localization of of second language grammar rules and rules materials are clear; such materials can also be of use when appropriate. Some such pro­ tailored to meet the needs and strengths of the vision is often made in the text or materials, teachers of a given school or program (Dubin with graphic displays of paradigms (e.g., the & Olshtain, 1986}. conjugation of "to be," the assignment of rel­ ative pronouns depending on case, the se­ quence of prenominal determiners and ad­ jectives, when to say "Hello," "Hi," and Rule Presentations "How's it goin' "). A great deal of research in the 1960s was Nevertheless, the teachers' presentation directed at the question of whether and when of rules will normally involve reformulations to present explicit second language grammar for their students' specific problems and de­ rules to students (Levin, 1972}. The upshot of gree of understanding, as Fc:erch (1986} sug­ those studies was that explicit grammar in­ gests. Teachers should have at the ready de­ struction was not consistently superior in the scriptions of typical rule applications with long run to other practices. As a result, the illustrations (such as when and how to use various communicatively oriented language "some" versus "any"}, and associated prac­ teaching methods and prescriptions in recent tice exercises. After observing several years have de-emphasized the use of explicit classrooms, Fc:erch (1986} found that a typical grammar rule presentation, and even a con­ sequence in teacher rule-presentation in­ cern for grammatically based materials (see, volved, first, a "Problem formulation," next, e.g., Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Freeman, 1986; an "Induction," with the teacher eliciting Richards & Rodgers, 1986}. However, recent student opinions, and then the teacher's research on second language acquisition has "Rule-formulation," followed optionally by ag(lin raised the question (Harley, 1988; further "Exemplification" by the teacher or Long, 1988; Rutherford, 1987; Rutherford & students. Alert teachers will adapt this typical Sharwood Smith, 1988}, both because se­ pattern to their circumstances, either shorten­ quences of acquisition might be affected by ing the sequence if a rule is judged to be the order of presentation of particular forms quickly learned, or developing more student­ (e.g., Tomasello & Herron, 1988; Zobl, 1985} generated ideas and interaction if the students and because students' attention to form may have difficulty with it. enhance their performance (at least in the Despite the probable usefulness of rule short run, e.g., Harley, 1989; Hulstijn & Hul­ presentations in many instances, teachers stijn, 1984; Mitchell, Parkinson, & Johnstone, should nonetheless stay closely abreast of 1981; cf. also the discussion in Chaudron, current research on second language acqui­ 1988}. Furthermore, rule presentation need sition, in order to understand which sorts of not be limited to grammar points. As more rules are reasonably learned and controlled, and more language curricula include the and which are not.

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 49 Explanations stage, the explanation itself, and a restatement), with several subcategories as As a follow-up to the presentatiOfl of optional features (e.g., with or without men­ rules, teachers need to be prepared at all tion of the topic item, metastatements, times during instruction not only to respond teacher solicits of students, examples), and at to students' questions, providing expla­ each stage, they point out that comprehen­ nations of the learning points, but also to re­ sion checks by the teacher are optional. An act to learners' problems (see later section, example of their model in a brief grammar "Correction and Feedback"), clarifying for explanation is the following: the learners the possible source of their prob­ Teacher: Can we say Focus + solicit lems, and "explaining" possible solutions. "these" in a Obviously, such explanations will not always tag? be phrased in terms of the target grammar, You can't use Explanation functions, or use, for they may involve study the word + explicit rule habits, psychological operations with lan­ "these" in a guage, or physical behaviors (such as how to tag. place the tongue to pronounce 181). What do we +solicit Although explanations are frequent and need to use? important, little research has been focused Clearly, teachers should pay attention to directly on how teachers provide them. Eisen­ the clarity and sufficiency of their expla­ stein (1980) provides a characterization of nations, especially to the extent of student some of the factors to be considered in giving comprehension. Just as with general teacher grammar explanations: whether a grammati­ feedback, teachers should never assume cal description should be explicit or not; that their explanations are understood or whether a rule is isolated or not; whether the "learned." Students need to be given the op­ explanation involves a deductive or inductive portunity to demonstrate comprehension, presentation; who gives the explanation­ and preferably not merely by solicitation of a the teacher, text, or another student; whether "yes" or a nod. We will discuss student re­ the language is abstract or not; and whether sponsiveness more below, under question the explanation is provided orally or in types and wait time. writing. On the basis of classroom observa­ tion and analysis, Chaudron (1982) outlines a variety of features of teachers' discourse that TASKS were used to clarify and explain (sometimes implicitly) teachers' vocabulary use. The Clearly, to aid discussion and commu­ most explicitly explanatory of these included nication among teachers (as well as for the repetition and emphasis in pronunciation, sake of comparative research), it is useful to · a~alysis of morphology, provision of ant­ have a set of terms to describe similar teach­ ~nyms and synonyms, nonverbal demonstra­ ing procedures. Therefore, in the following tao~s,. verbal examples and collocations, de­ sections we will utilize the terms "activity" s~npt~ons of characteristics or typical and "task," looking in particular at the char­ satuataons for use of a term, translations, para­ acteristics of these that are important for suc­ phrases, and use of definitions. cessful control over teaching and learning. Following Chaudron's approach, Yee & Wagner (1984) developed a discourse model Subsections of a Lesson­ of teachers' vocabulary and grammar ex­ the Activity planations. Their model (reproduced in Chaudron, 1988, p. 88) contains several ma­ Probably the most commonly used and jor segments (a framing stage, a focusing general term for the units of which a lesson

50 1 Teaching Methodology w~;,,,,, .. ,.

consists is "activity." Most teachers, in dis­ options from which the teacher can select a cussing their lesson plans and behaviors, will given sequence within a lesson. (Jse this word, although specific activities of­ Unfortunately, very little classroom re­ ten have particular names.. Surprisingly, search has involved a consistent system of however, through the years there has been description upon which to base comparisons remarkably little standardization of either a of the communicative degree of activities definition or a delineation of the set of possi­ (though see the teacher attitude/opinion sur­ ble language teaching activities. The term veys of Swaffar, Arens, & Morgan, 1982, and rarely if ever appears indexed in the classic Nunan, 1988a). For example, Frohlich, language teaching methodology texts and is Spada, and Allen (1985) do not specify the set not an entry in the Longman Dictionary of of activities they used to segment their Applied Linguistics (Richards, Platt, & Weber, classroom analyses. Mitchell et al. (1981) 1985), although it is named as an alternative also only analyze a small set of "language" to the entry for "task." We do not propose activities as segments of lessons (e.g., "trans­ here to explore fully the breadth of possibili­ lation," "real FL," "transposition," "imita­ ties, or distinguish definitively among the tion"), which they propose interact with class uses of the terms "activity," "exercise," or groupings, topics, skills areas, and modes of "task." In fact, however, much recent analy­ teacher involvement. Nunan (1988) cites a sis of SL classrooms, materials, and syllabi has 1985 study by K. Eltis and B. Low which utilized the last term to discuss those less­ polled 445 teachers on the perceived useful­ controlled activities which produce realistic ness of teaching activities, and the following use of the SL. These have also characterized ranking was found (from high to low use­ the communicative approaches6 whose up­ fulness): surge marks the current era of SL teaching. In students working in pairs/small groups order to discuss both the controlled and freer role-play types of classroom learning procedures we language games will on this occasion utilize "activity" as a reading topical articles broader term, with "task" applying to a sepa­ students making oral presentations rable element of a lesson, which is primarily doze exercises . geared to practicing language presented ear­ using video materials lier (or otherwise learned), usually involving students repeating teacher cue (drill) students working with each other, and which exercise in free writing has a specific objective (see below). setting and correcting homework In much early work on language teach­ listening and note taking ing, the concern was on the nature of skill repeating and learning dialogs use, drill types (e.g., Politzer, 1970), and students reading aloud in class eventually types of communicative interac­ exercises in conference writing tion (referred to as activities by Paulston & (adapted from Nunan, 1988, p. 89) Bruder, 1976). Thus, fairly extensive taxono­ mies of drill types were detailed, on a contin­ In recent classroom observation work by uum from "controlled" to "free" (i.e., with Chaudron and Valcarcel (1988), a tentative respect to the degree of teacher versus student list of activity types has been developed. We control), or "mechanical" to "meaningful," display this list grouped according to three to "communicative." The frequent dictum is degrees of teacher versus student control over that, for a specific learning point, learners the performance ofthe activity, although, like need to develop from more controlled and other practitioners, we recognize that factors mechanical to more free and communicative such as the topic and the teacher's goals can behaviors. Therefore, a classification of activ­ influence the degree of control. Teachers ity types along such a continuum sets the should be familiar with each of these types,

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 51 and pay attention to the various discussions in Dialogue/Narrative recitation: reciting a the literature of their benefits and disadvan­ previously known or prepared text, ei­ tages. ther in unison or individually. Reading aloud: reading directly from a Controlled-Teacher Has Basic Control given text. Over Processes Checking: teacher either circulating or guiding the correction of students' Warm-up: mimes, dance, song, jokes, work, providing feedback as an activ­ play. This activity has the purpose of ity rather than within another activity. getting the students stimulated, re­ Question-answer, display: activity in­ laxed, motivated, attentive, or other­ volving prompting of student re­ wise engaged and ready for the sponses by means of display questions classroom lesson, not necessarily re­ (i.e., teacher or questioner already lated to the target language. knows the response or has a very lim­ Setting: Focusing in on lesson topic. Ei­ ited set of expectations for the appro­ ther verbal or nonverbal evocation of priate response). Distinguished from the context that is relevant to the les­ referential questions by means of the son point; by way of questioning or likelihood of the questioner's knowing miming or picture presentation, possi­ the response, and the speaker's being bly tape recording of situations and aware of that fact. people, teacher directs attention to the Drill: typical language activity involving upcoming topic. fixed patterns of teacher and student Organizational: managerial structuring responding and prompting, usually of lesson or class activities. Includes with repetition, substitution, and other reprimanding of students and other mechanical alterations. Typically with disciplinary action, organization of little meaning attached. class furniture and seating, etc., gen­ Translation: student or teacher provision eral procedures for class interaction of L1 or L2 translations of given text. and performarice, structure and pur­ Dictation: student writing down orally pose of lesson, etc. presented text. Content explanation: explanation of les­ Copying: student writing down text pre­ son content and grammar or other sented visually. rules and points. Phonology, gram­ Identification: student picking out and mar, lexis, sociolinguistics, or what­ producing/labeling or otherwise iden­ ever is being "taught." tifying a specific target form, function, Role play demonstration: use of selected definition, or other lesson-related students or teacher to iII ustrate the item. procedures(s) to be applied in the les­ Recognition: student identifying forms, son segment to follow. Includes brief etc., as in Identification, but without illustration of language or other con­ producing language as response (i.e., tent to be incorporated. checking off items, drawing symbols, Pialogue/ Narrative presentation: read­ rearranging pictures). ing or listening passage presented for Review: teacher-led review of previous passive reception. No implication of week/month/ or other period as a for­ student production or other identifi­ mal summary and type of test of cation of specific target forms or func­ student recall and performance. tions (students may be asked to "un­ Testing: formal testing procedures to derstand"). evaluate student progress.

52 I Teaching Methodology 1s·;· ' r, r

I •I

Meaningful drill: drill activity involving Information exchange: task involving responses with meaningful choices, as two-way communication as in infor­ in reference to different information. mation gap exercises, when one or Distinguished from Information Ex­ both parties (or a larger group) must change by the regulated sequence and share information to achieve some general form of responses. goal. Distinguished from Question­ answer, Referential in that sharing of information is, critical for the resol u­ Semicontrolled tion of task. Brainstorming: a special form of prepa­ Wrap-up: brief teacher or student pro­ ration for the lesson, like Setting, duced summary of point and/or items which involves free, undirected con­ that have been practiced or learned. tributions by the students and teacher Narration/exposition: presentation of a on a given topic, to generate multiple story or explanation derived from associations without linking them; no prior stimuli. Distinguished from Cued explicit analysis or interpretation by Narrative because of lack of immedi­ the teacher. ate stimulus. Story-telling (especially when student­ Preparation: student study, silent generated): not necessarily lesson­ reading, pair planning and rehearsing, based, lengthy presentation of story or preparing for later activity. Usually a event by teacher or student (may over­ student-directed or -oriented project. lap with Warm-up or Narrative rec­ Free itation). May be used to maintain attention, motivation, or as lengthy Role-play: relatively free acting out of practice). specified roles and functions. Distin­ Question-answer, referential: activity in­ guished from Cued Dialogues by the volving prompting of responses by fact that cueing is provided only mini­ means of referential questions (i.e., ·mally at the beginning, and not during the questioner does not know before­ the activity. hand the response information). Dis­ Games: various kinds of language game tinguished from Question-answer, activity, if not like other previously de­ Display. fined activities (e.g., board and dice Cued narrative/Dialog: student produc­ games making words). tion of narrative or dialog following Report: report of student-prepared expo­ cues from miming, cue cards, pic­ sition on books, experiences, project tures, or other stimuli related to nar­ work, without immediate stimulus, rative/dialog (e.g., metalanguage re­ and elaborated on according to questing functional acts). student interests. Akin to Composition Information transfer: application from in writing mode. one mode (e.g., visual) to another Problem solving: activity involving spec­ (e.g., writing), which involves some ified problem and limitations of means transformation of the information to resolve it; requires cooperative ac­ (e.g., student fills out diagram while tion on part of participants in small or listening to description). Distin­ large group. guished from Identification in that the Drama: planned dramatic rendition of student is expected to transform and play, skit, story, etc. reinterpret the language or infor­ Simulation: activity involving complex mation. interaction between groups and indi-

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 53 rmr~-.,;-._,-...., ~r'"""""'""""----=-=-- _. -.-

viduals based on simulation of real­ l.ife actions and experiences. via a range of procedures, desirabl . witll other learners in some social Ill 'I' Y lndependent1Y .4) Discussion: debate or other form of 1 leu·-Candlin (1 98 grouped discussion of specified topic, a piece of work undertaken fo thers, freely or for some reward r oneself or for the with or without specified sides/ 0 hundred and one things People· · · bydo "t. as k" IS· m eantlife, a t positions prearranged. work, at play, and in between l In everyday 891 Composition: as in Report (verbal), a task .IS . . . any structural langua·- ong 0985,. p. deav r 0 written development of ideas, story, or which has a particular objective ge lear~mg en tent, a other exposition. - specified working procedu ' appropnate con ..-.es re, and a ra f utCO"' A propos: conversation or other socially for those who undertake the task . . nge 0 0 ranse of workplans which have th · · lrt refers) to a ·nat· oriented interaction/speech by teacher, 1 ing language learnrng-frorn. e overallthe . Purpose of •faCI f e"er • students, or even visitors, on general 1 5 c.se type to more complex and lengthyllllp1 e and. . .brre such a s bl real-life topics. Typically authentic group pro em-so Ivrng · Sllllulat·. act1v1t1esd d cislo. n· and genuine. makmg.-Breen. (1987a, p. 23) 1ons an e One of a set of differentiated bl "oal· d directe actrv1tres. · · d rawrng . on a ran• sequencea f 't'vee o an { . . ge o cognr 1 0 Task Types and Parameters communrcat1ve procedures relatable t th ·s· ion ° pre-genre and genre sk Ills. appropriateo t eacqu1f eseen 11 r . . h t . • o a or ° In the list above, the headings "Free" and emerg1ng soc1or e onca 1 Sltuation.-swales ( gobl 19 "Semicontrolled" cover a number of activi­ the smallest unit of classroom work wh• h. es learn· . h d' . 1c rnvo v r· ties which have been discussed elsewhere as ers 1n compre en rng, manipulating, producing1 or inte _ "tasks." Since more information has been acting in the target langu.age. Minimally, tasks will con collected on them than on other classroom tain some form of da_ta or Input (this might be verbal, e.s·; activities, they are considered separately in a dialogue or reading passage, or non-verbal, e.g., r this section. picture sequence). The task will also have (implicitlY 0 explicitly) a goal and roles for teachers and learners.­ It might be thought that the construction Nunan (1989, p. 5) of a list of possible task types from which a A wide variety of text types are in use as teacher could select was one of the most fun­ the stimulus material for tasks. Nunan (1989) damental jobs for writers on SL pedagogy, refers to the following forms: one long since completed. Surprisingly, speech tho~gh, SL methodologists have only recently Writing dialogs started dealing with general principles of public notices and monologs communicative materials design (e.g., signs interviews Nunan, 1989; Wright, 1987; with a precursor diary extracts conversations in Breen, Candlin, & Waters, 1979). So there postcards aural descriptions exist in the literature various descriptors, and poems, songs, and and narratives various definitions of task, some quite prom­ rhymes descriptions of ising, but without much in the way of evi­ newspaper headlines processes dence of their utility. To begin with, there is short stories media extracts no one agreed-upon description, though instructions and there is substantial overlap in the definitions public directions which are in use·. We list them so that a gen­ announcements telephone directorieS games and puzzles eral impression can be gained, as it is not our junk mail intent to legislate a singl~ form here. picture strips textbook/ journa I photo essays extracts one of a set of sequenceable, differentiable and problem­ invitations posing activities which involve learners in some self­ reliant selection among a range of variably available Our purpose in citing this taxonomy here cognitive and communicative strategies applied to exist­ is simply to alert teachers to the fact t~at al­ ing or acquired knowledge in the exploration and at­ most anything can be used as the bas1s of a tainment of a variety of pre-specified or emergent goals task. In many SL teaching situations, use of a

54 1 Teaching Methodology ,. '

wide variety of texts (written and spoken) is classroom arrangement is better th other. Nevertheless, we can dire an an­ '\ justified, since part of developing learners' .~ ·. to some aspects of, for example thc.t d~ttention skill is ensuring that they become familiar generated by a particular arra~ e tscourse with as wide a range of text types as possible. argue that in the light of what weg~ment, and Some of the terms given in the lists above Sllearning, or about learning in ge now about also have been used occasionally as task de­ 1 an arrangement is (or is not) ' such scriptors, but they are too superficial for this desir:~ purpose. More useful are statements concern­ ing the possible, desirable, or minimal units Relevant Characteristics of a task. Nunan (1988a) would identify them Several of the characteristics to b . as goals, data, activities, and roles; Candlin cussed focus on the provision of co e dts­ (1987) refers to input, roles, settings sible input, as indicated by marke mp;:hen­ (classroom or out-of-class), actions (proce­ 0 actional modification. It has been ;~ ~nter­ dures and subtasks), monitoring (degree of language which is comprehensible supervision), outcomes, and feedback (evalu­ ~~~h~~a~ learner (and at an appropriate level) . b ation). Outside the Sl field, the classroom­ 11 .1g h ut1'l'ty 1 '10r 1earnmg · purposes WI d e h of research based work of Doyle (1979, 1980, h .m d' 1cators o f sue h d'tscourse are thos' an d t . at 1983) has been quite influential, and ante­ . f lk e evta- 1 ) dates most SL-related statements on task com­ tlfn~f ro~ no~ma t~· which are used to can y 1ngs or problems in ponents. His position on the parameters or n:a•su~ e~stanl fj ong, 1980). The role of ·' components of a task has been summarized com~um_catstondsee practtce m l evelopment has als b as follows: h . d d S . o een en:'P ash1ze , an hwam (1985) has referred to th1s as t e output ypothesis. This would _ a task Is comprised of several elements. One element is content, the subject matter to be taught. . · · A second gest that task characteristics. which requtres~g element of a task is materials, the things that (can be) learners. to pro h d uce more complex co ns t ruc- ?bserve(d] and manipulate( d). A third element of the task tions than t ey would otherwise use should IS activity. . . the things that the teacher and student will be valuable (see Crookes & Schmidt, 1990. be doing during the lesson. . . . A fourth element is Duff, 1986). If teachers are aware of th ' goals, the teacher's general aim for the task. . · · A fifth factors, they can make more informed des~ ·element is the student, especially his (sic( abilities, · b t h · eca- needs, and interests. The last element is the social context stons a ou w at matenal to select or t d of instruction. (our emphasis; Shavelson & Stern, 1981, velop• themselves (for more detailed d'oISCUS- e- p. 478) SIOn see Chaudron, 1988; Crookes, 1986) The task characteristic on which m~st Doyle's position seems relatively well ~ork ha~ been done to date has been termed founded, but it is definitely oriented to the mformauon structure (an aspect of "inform _ non-SL classroom· more recent SL-oriented , ' I tion transfer'' activities-see list above unda positions are primarily based on perceived "Su b sections· o f a Iesson"). Information gaper ~ase of use and conceptual analysis. Future tasks may b~ design~d so that each partici­ Investigation must further substantiate their pant holds d1fferent mformation which m t adequacy. We hope that these statements be shared verbally in order for the task to ~se provide a general idea of the concept being considered here. However, we recognize that :uck~~ssfullby completed. Such a "two-way as . can e_ compared to one in which ver­ their utility is restricted by the very limited bal mformatton transfer is also necessary f amount of research on which they are based task completion, but where the at present. Because of the long-term nature of information~~ alloc_ated solely to one participant, who is SL learning, on the one hand, and the short­ required to convey it to the other. Long (1980) term nature of many observations of SL show:d that two-way tasks produce more in­ learning in the classroom, it is at present dif­ teractional modification (repetitions, expan- ficult to demonstrate that a given task or

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 55 sions, confirmation checks) than do one-way likely to be relevant is recycling. If the dis­ tasks, for native speaker-nonnative speaker course generated by a task requires the same ·(NS-NNS) dyads. Studies by Doughty and linguistic material to be used repeatedly, such Pica (1986, Pica & Doughty, 1985) give fur­ a conversation would be potentially more ther support for the differences discovered useful to the NNS than one in which many between one-way versus two-way tasks with items occurred once only. However, the sole respect to talk between nonnative speakers. attempt to investigate this so far (Crookes & A second characteristic of tasks, which is Rulon, 1985) used "discourse topic" as an in a sense complementary to the one-/two­ indicator of recycling, but found that different way distinction, is shared assumptions. Some topics may contain the same linguistic items, studies suggest that the extensive shared possibly because this unit of analysis was too background information available in some large. The question would still seem worthy two-way tasks may work against calling forth of further investigation, nevertheless. more negotiation of meaning. It may be (as A fourth possible factor is convergence, Gass & Varon is, 1985, argue) that if both par­ which derives from the work of Duff (1986). ticipants in an information-gap task have a Many communicative tasks available on the very clear idea of the structure of one an­ ESL materials market require participants to other's information, there will be less likeli­ "reach a mutually acceptable solution" hood of partial or complete meaning (Duff, 1986, p. 150), often in solving some breakdowns. Similarly (as Gaies, 1982, sug­ values clarification problem (for an early ex­ gests), if both participants are well acquainted ample, see Cole, 1970). Also quite common with each other, they will be able to manage now are materials which require students to communication difficulties without the need take a stand on one or another side of an for extensive negotiation that is probably use­ issue, and argue their positions (e.g., Alexan­ ful for language acquisition. This may also der, Kingsbury & Chapman, 1978). The apply to the availability of visual support for a former type may be termed a "convergent task. In an investigation of the degree to task type," the latter a "divergent task type" "Yhich three different tasks produced changes (Duff, 1986, p. 150). Duff found that the dis­ in- learners' interlanguages, Crookes and course which these two types of task produce Rulon (1988) found that of two problem­ have different characteristics. Specifically, solving tasks, the one which was less produc­ her results show that convergent tasks lead to · tive of immediately observable IL develop­ frequent exchange of turns and more commu­ ment was that in which the task provided nication units, whereas divergent tasks lead visual support to both members of the dyad. to longer turns of greater syntactic complex­ Even though the pictures used were not iden­ ity. If convergent tasks may produce more tical, they were versions of the same picture, questions and shorter turns, it might be as­ differing only in certain limited features. This sumed that more comprehensible input is effect of shared assumptions is further sup­ available in the discourse which ac­ ported by noA-SL work: in research on young companies their performance. Alternatively, children's production of oral narrative (in if emphasis is being placed on output and the their first language, English) on different tasks role of practice, divergent tasks may be more investigators found that "in summary . . : highly valued, although "the extended dis­ telling an original story elicited a greater course (long turns) in [divergent tasks) re­ quantity of language and somewhat more duces opportunities for negotiation of input mature language structures than the other . . . coupled with the greater syntactic com­ tasks, although each task yielded slightly dif­ plexity of [discussion), this reduces . . . the ferent structures" (Nurss & Hough, 1985, p. amount of comprehensible input available" 283). (Duff, 1986, p. 170). A third feature which has been posited as The factors covered in this section consti-

56 I Teaching Methodology ,.,

tute what we hope is only the beginning of classroom processes today favors a great investigations into the utility of SL classroom amount of student-centered learning instead materials. We hope that by being aware of of the traditional teacher-dominated class­ those factors which have been investigated, room (Nunan, 1988a). The teacher-do.lil- ~ as well as the things for which no evidence inated clas~.!!LJ"teacher-frQ!J~sJ~:) is can legitimately be claimed (despite pub­ cllaracteiized by the teacher's speaking lishers' promotional claims), teachers will mosiortfie tim'e-;-Jeaarrlifactivities,_. and find it easier to make the best possible deci­ constanfl¥~:jJassitl"iJWlgm~nJ ·-o-n -student sions when designing or selecting SL tasks. perfprmance, w~ereas in, a his~lY·. s~~d~r:tt­ cent~ed cl

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 57 to perform equally successfully in terms of linguistic" point of view (long & Porter, grammatical accuracy as when the teacher is 1985). Concerning the former, it is a better leading discussion (Pica & Doughty 1985; d. use of class time. For the latter, since output is discussion in Chaudron, 1988, pp. 150- probably very important for SL learning, situ­ 152). We will therefore focus briefly on the ations which permit or encourage only one­ management of group work in second lan­ or two-word responses are less desirable than guage classes. those which allow more complex speech, or more risk taking in terms of the use of unfa­ Group Work miliar, as yet unautomatized language. Assuming the general utility of group f Pica and Doughty (e.g., 1985) looked at work, there are other, lower-level questions \ interactional modification in teacher-fronted to consider. An elementary matter is group versus student-only group decision-making size, and at least one study exists to support discussions, comparing complete classes plus the elementary observation that participants a teacher with small groups minus a teacher. in larger groups speak less (Liski & Puntanen, On the one-way task used in this study, they 1983). More details on which teachers may did not find differences, but when they used a base decisions about this factor come from a two-way task they found more interactional study (Antony, 1986) of the discourse of NNS ~odifications did occur in the group situa­ groups of two to five in size performing "task­ tron. As mentioned above, this does not di- based consensus activities." i rectly consider learning, but rather a factor Group size does not seem greatly to af­ \ which should facilitate it (i.e., negotiation of fect the number of wpm (words per minute) of \meaning via changes in the structure of dis- the group as a whole, so smaller groups likely course). generate more wpm per student. Larger One of the earliest studies to provide evi­ groups, however, seem to introduce new dence in fayor of Sl group work was that of ideas more quickly and have more simulta­ Long, Adams; Mclean, and Castarios (1976), neous starts and more brief overlaps. So while who. found NNS participants in a dyadic dis­ smaller groups may provide more practice in cussron task utilizing a wider range of lan­ speaking, larger groups may well provide guage than NNSs in a larger, teacher-fronted more valuable input (Antony, 1986, p. 5). ~roup engaged in discussing the same ques­ While SL teaching in the last decade has tron. This referred to what kinds of remarks emphasized group work, a related develop­ students made, whether or not they initiated ment in mainstream education has focused changes of topic, and in general whether or on "cooperative learning," which adds con­ ~ot they used a wide range of language func­ sideration of reward structures and some­ tr.ons .. lt was also suggested that a large group times team competition to the characteristics srtuatron might cause students' utterances to of SL group work. Its applicability to the SL be briefer and less complex, as opposed to classroom has just begun to be investigated. the more relaxed atmosphere provided by the For example, Bejarano (1987) conducted a small group. large-scale longitudinal study of cooperative . . These findings are prob~bly consistent learning organization in EFL classes in Israel, wrth the practical experience of many and reported superior results for the experi­ teachers, who may well have found that mental groups. Although the findings in this students, particularly those from Asian cul­ study are not as clear-cut as claimed (cf. tures, are reluctant to speak in front of the Chaudron, Crookes, & Long, 1988; Zhang, ~hole class, but are much more forthcoming 1988), students in the cooperative learning rn ~maller groups. Obviously, this has impli­ groups maintained equivalent performance catrons for the utility of the group setting, to those in regular EFL classrooms, despite from both a "pedagogical" and a "psycho- starting at a lower level of ability.

58 I Teaching Methodology ...

There is a large number of possible ar­ Aspects of the Teacher-Fronted . rangements for cooperative learning tasks in Class language classrooms, and second language ,-- teachers need to be familiar with the basic Although we emphasize the relative pro­ principles of this type of organization. Three ductivity of the small group over the teacher­ essential elements are identified by Bossert fronted class, teachers sometimes need to op­ (1988): (1) Students are told to work together, erate in a "lock-step" mode. There are a few (2) reward contingencies are arranged to en­ general characteristics of teacher-student in­ courage this, (3) tasks are constructed which teraction which can fairly easily be manipu­ can only be completed if learners work to­ lated under those conditions, to the advan- f gether. Obviously, point 1 is simple to carry tage of SL learning. One is question ~pe, and ) another is wait time. ?ut. Point 2 requires a little more planning. It IS possible to allocate rewards to groups as wholes. Some forms of cooperative learning Question Types --.... allow groups to compete against other l groups, in which case rewards may be allo­ A number of studies (Brock, 1986; Dins- i cated in inverse proportion to those of other more, 1985; Early, 1985; Long & Sato, 1983; (successful) groups. The third point is proba­ Longetal., 1984;Nunan, 1986;Pica&Long, bly the one to which most attention has been 1986) have shown that ESL teachers' ?iven in SL work, since task interdependence classroom questioning patterns are typically IS a major feature of information-gap tasks different from those used by native speakers and related activities. In these cases, stu­ conversing casually with adult nonnative dents know only one piece of the solution speakers. SL teachers ask mo~~ displa~ g~~­ to a puzzle or information required to tions (those to which the questioner already ~olve a problem, and must communicate knows the answer) than do ordinary NSs talk- It to others in their group. More typical .ing to NNSs. J.h~J~tt~(JJ~Yil!!Y-Y.~~J~f~L~ntf![ of mainstream cooperative learning and .Q.I,!~Stions (those to which the questioner does t less common in current SL materials is not already know the answer). This may be the possibility that task interdependence can because teachers have a tendency to act as if be fostered by assigning special functions the SL was information which they must to group members-for example, chairper­ transmit to the students, thus leading them to j son, checker, gofer. (See Johnson, Johnson, test whether it has been understood by using I Holubec, & Roy, 1984; d. jacobs, 1988, display questions. / for ~-iscussion of SL applications of this ap­ There are reasons to be concerned over proach.) this pattern. First of all, there is genernl accep- .~ In addition to group size and the shared tance of the idea that the model of the target cooperative goals of group work, it should be language provided by the teacher in the recognized that group work results in greater classroom should not deviate greatly from diversity of performance from one group to that likely to be encountered in real life. Sec­ another. This fact suggests that just as individ­ ond, if teacher-student interaction is pre­ uals contribute to a group, the different dominantly by way of display questions, rela­ groups in a classroom can be linked through tively little real communication is going on. different tasks and roles, and shared responsi­ As Long and Crookes (1987, p. 181) observe,, bilities, to generate whole-class tasks and ob­ "display questions by definition preclude jectives. Although competitive models can be students attempting to communicate new I employed in this way (as in one of Bejarano's unknown information. They tend to set th~ treatment groups), this view points rather focus of the entire exchanges they initiate on ~ toward whole-class cooperative learning accuracy rather than meaning. The teacher i projects. (and usually the student) already knows what ~ I

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 59 the other is saying or trying to say, so there is SL student utterances. It did not result in more \.no meaning left to negotiate." utterances per student turn, however, which Without negotiation of meaning it is may have been due to the low level of the questionable whether students addressed by students on whom the study was conducted, a teacher are actually receiving useful input, or possibly an interaction between cognitive , in terms of its being appropriate to their cur­ level of questions and wait-time. When ask­ rent level of comprehension and/or language ing "harder" questions, teachers tended to development. Furthermore, less complex lan­ wait longer anyway, but the difficulty of such guage is likely to be produced by learners questions was not always compensated for by who know that the teacher is only asking the proportionately longer wait-time. We ad­ ~uestion to check their knowledge, rather vance the matter of wait-time here as an ex­ than really wanting a proper and complete ample of a classroom procedure which is very answer to a real question. easy to manipulate, and one which warrants { A further distinction is relevant, between further classroom investigation. Teachers closed referential questions (questions to might want to try the effects of simply waiting which the speaker does not know the answer, longer as they interact with their SL students, ~ut.to which there is either only one or a very knowing that their findings, if communicated, lrm1t~d set of possible answers) and open ref­ could aid their colleagues and further sub­ erential questions (questions to which the stantiate (or perhaps disprove) the potential of speaker does not know the answer and to increased wait-time in Sl teaching. which ~ large [infinite] variety of ans~ers are possible). long et al. (1984) found that open referential questions produced more complex student responses than did closed referential CORRECTION AND FEEDBACK , questions (with complexity measured by · number of words per student turn).· In earlier sections on rule presentations and explanation, we noted that a focus on Wait-Time formal aspects of the SL had again become a concern of methodologists and practitioners. Wait-time refers to the pause which fol­ Error correction and feedback have typically lows a teacher question either to an individ­ been considered to be part of such a focus. ual student or to the whole class which lasts However, as Chaudron notes in his review of until either a student answers o; the teacher feedback in language teaching (1988; see adds a comment or poses another question. It also Chaudron, 1986, for a review of feed­ can also apply to the period between one back on writing): student's answer to a question and the re­ spo~se of the teacher or another student. In any communicative exchange, speakers derive from their listeners information on the reception and com­ ~a1t-time has been the subject of a substan­ prehension of their message. . . . From the language tial number of investigations over the last 20 teacher's point of view, the provision of feedback . . . is Y:ars, mostly outside the SL field. These have a major means by which to inform learners of the ac­ found that wait-times can be altered by curacy of both their formal target language production teachers, but tend to be short, around one and their other classroom behavior and knowledge. From the learners' point of view, the use of feedback in s:cond (e.g., Rowe, 1969; for review see To­ repairing their utterances, and involvement in repairing bm, 1987). Also, when wait-time is increased their interlocutors' utterances, may constitute the most !o three ~o five seconds, there is improvement potent source of improvement in both target language ~~ learnmg, and in the quality of classroom development and other subject matter knowledge. (pp. d1scourse. The principal SL study of wait-time 132-133) (Longetal., 1984), found that increased wait­ Thus, there is no reason to associate feed­ time after teacher questions resulted in longer back and correction solely with a formal fo-

60 I Teaching Methodology ,., \ cus. ~eve~heless,_~approaches to language mars. Such feedback is likely to be perceived teachmg w1ll vary JR the degree to which the by the learner not as a formal change, but teacher is considered to be the source of rather as a confirmation, rephrasing, or "correcting" behavior. A traditional notion is clarification of the functional meaning. As a that the teacher or materials provide a cor­ hypothetical example: rection of every (important) learner error, Student: I can no go back home today early. while a more current view would emphasize Teacher: You can't go home early today? the importance of-learners obtaining feed­ Student: No. back (and possible correction) only when the meanings they attempt to convey are not un­ If there is in fact reason to provide formal derstood, and even then, the feedback should feedback in such a case, it helps to focus on , be a natural outcome of the communicative the specific correction by emphasizing and interaction (often between learners). Even in isolating the modeled forms (Chaudron, the most learner-centered instruction, learn­ 1977); "I can't go home," or "early today." ers need feedback in order to differentiate On the other hand, this practice may still be between acceptable and unacceptable target less effective than one of getting learners to language use. self-correct (see Herron & Tomasello, 1988), Communicative language teaching ma­ or having other learners assist in corrections. terials must provide opportunities for learners Peer correction has the potential advantage of to recognize the communicative effective­ being set at the right level of development in ness of their target language productions (in the learner's interlanguage grammar. If there the form of feedback and repairing of misun­ are further grounds for ensuring that a cor­ derstood speech), for example, when correct rection be understood, teachers should make description of pictures in a two-way informa­ an effort to verify comprehension and ability tion gap task is the only source of success on to produce an appropriate form (preferably the task. Regrettably, research on the effects supplied by the learner or peers), by means of of teacher feedback on development of ac­ a follow-up elicitation. Caution must be curacy in learner-centered tasks has not been maintained, however, in not resorting to ex­ conducted (but see Crookes & Rulon, 1985, tensive drills in such cases. for feedback in NS-NNS dyadic tasks). Moreover, a recent study of learners of The provision of feedback, or even "cor­ French as a SL suggests that provision of cor­ rections," does not mean that the information rect forms may be more effective if learners provided must be stated in formalized gram­ are induced to produce an incorrect form be­ matical or other descriptive terms. The fore having it "corrected." Tomasello and teacher has many options available (All­ Herron (1988) induced certain errors by pre­ wright, 197 5; Chaudron, 1977; Long, 1977), senting exceptions to rules and either indicat­ from simply indicating lack of comprehen­ ing or not indicating that they were excep­ sion, or otherwise signaling the fact of an tions. Those students who were corrected error, and getting the learner to self-correct after producing overgeneralized forms of the (see discussion of learner-oriented correction exceptions were superior on tests of the forms in Chaudron, 1988; Long & Porter, 1985), to than students who were simply shown the the most elaborate grammatical explanation exceptions in contrast to the rules. and drill of correct forms. An important limitation on the effective­ Teachers will most frequently make the ness of feedback and correction, especially mistake of thinking that by providing a correct with respect to grammatical development, is "model," by repeating student statements the natural order of development of ~ given with some slight change in the grammatical structure or function. Ultimately, teachers form, learners will perceive the correction must remain current with findings of research and incorporate it into their developing gram- in second language acquisition, in order to be

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 61 knowledgeable about fixed sequences of ac­ a general lack of direct support (Mclaughlin, quisition, for it is unlikely that any sort of error 1987a; Schumann, 1986). correction or feedback can radically influ­ Meanwhile, for the last 20 years or more, ence these. mainstream educational researchers have been investigating the topic of classroom cli­ mate, or classroom environment, in non-Sl CLASSROOM CLIMATE classes (Fraser, 1986). Their results have not been particularly clear-cut, either. Observa­ As teachers we cannot ignore the fact that tional measures of positive affect correlate classroom SL learning has a social dimension. poorly with achievement, which may have to It might be assumed that all practitioners are do with the fact that praise, a major com­ aware of this, and also that all SL teachers will ponent of such measures, is distributed in­ strive to arrange for a relaxed, supportive en­ consistently across high- and low-achieving vironment in order to promote learning. pupils. Teachers thus may need to reconsider However, it is desirable to ask what evidence the tendency to use "Good!" far too often, we have to support this position, or if it is only and inconsistently, even though they may ac­ an assumption (d. Brumfit, 1981; Mosko­ cept the need for a positive classroom climate witz, 1978). It certainly has not always been in general (cf. Soar & Soar, 1975). More use­ assumed to be an accurate statement, as a fully (and as might be expected), negative glance at the prescriptions for SL classrooms affect correlates significantly, and negatively, of 20 years ago will quickly show. In addi­ with achievement. More well-defined results tion, the position that such an environment come from student self-report measures of favors learning is not accepted across all cul­ learning environment (e.g., the learning En­ tures (particularly non-Western educational vironment Inventory [LEI], Walberg, 1968). systems). Culturally determined student ex­ Since these investigations are concerned with pectations, the individual teacher's personal­ students' perception of classes, a distinction ity, and the interaction between these two has been. made between the previous aspect impose limitations on the social climate of the of this topic, "classroom climate," and that classroom. Nevertheless, teachers have some implied here, "classroom psychological en­ flexibility as to what choices they make. vironment." The latter is keyed to such con­ In recent years there have been two cepts as students' familiarity with each other, streams of discussion in this area directly con­ enjoyment of classwork, physical environ­ nected to Sl learning. One is that broadly ment, influence on class activities, familiarity associated with the label "humanistic ap­ with course goals, organization of the course proaches." In this area are the so-called inno­ material, and its speed of coverage. The va­ vative methods such as Counseling-learning lidityofthe LEI is indicated by research which and Suggestopedia. The training needed to finds it to be a better predictor of in-class utilize these techniques according to the full achievement than IQ measures, and there is prescriptions of their fo~nders is more exten­ also evidence for the measure's cross­ sive than most Sl teachers have time for, and linguistic and cross-cultural validity (An­ the evidence for their success has not been derson & Walberg, 1974). ~orthcoming (d. Wagner & Tiln~y, 1983). The How then does one achieve a positive second strand here is the less doctrinaire po­ learning environment? The moves one should sition associated in particular with Schu­ make seem straightforward, but in the press of mann (1978) and Krashen (e.g., 1982). Kra­ so many other considerations (the section of shen in particular has posited an "affective the textbook to be covered, tests to be admin­ filter," which must be lowered if successful istered, activities to do) they can sometimes unconscious SL development is to take place. be lost sight of. We can remind teachers of a However, these positions have suffered from number of fairly obvious points, some of

62 1 Teaching Methodology which derive from research using the LEI­ class, they should be made explicit and re­ others from recent developments in the study ferred to. (This will also aid teacher planning 7 of motivation. and evaluation.) Whatever rules may be nee.: It would appear desirable, then, to ar­ essary for the class to run smoothly should be range matters so that the class is cohesive, - spelled out and adhered to-prompt atten­ with students as far as possible knowing each dance, no smoking, and so on. As is obvious other, and being assured that the teacher (but not always easy to achieve), the material knows them. As has often been suggested in should be appropriate to the level of the SL pedagogy (e.g., Bailey & Celce-Murcia, students, well organized, and coverable at a 1979), there is value in ice-breaking activities comfortable speed. at the beginning of a class-short question­ finally, let us consider some motiva­ naires which must be filled in about a fellow tional factors (see also Keller, 1983). An im­ student, or simple games which require each portant area here is interest. Taking the con­ person to enquire about others' names and tent of the class as a given, the instructor can backgrounds are fine for this. The teacher work on keeping up interest by personalizing must also make an effort to know names and instruction-making connections between backgrounds (seating plans and the same the material and individual students, or to short questionnaires will be useful here). In­ him- or herself. It is also important to use a terpersonal skills will be needed to ensure wide range of activities, so that classes vary in that there is an absence of friction, that format. students mix with each other, and that there According to motivation theories, we all are neither cliques nor perceived teacher "fa­ have personal needs for achievement, affili­ vorites." Related factors' which may also be ation, and power. In a classroom context that important are how enthusiastic the teacher means we like to succeed, we like to make appears, and whether s/he appears happy, connections with others, and we like to have and uses humor in the classroom (Moskowitz control over our own learning situation. Con­ & Hayman, 1974). sequently, the instructor should ensure that The importance of a good physical envi­ learning activities are pitched at an appro­ ronment shows up in mainstream educa­ priate level. Success will engender confi­ tional research (Walberg, 1985) and in dence and higher expectations of future suc­ comments on SL classrooms (Bailey & cess (sometimes called expectancy). This Celce-Murcia, 1979). It has often been ob­ should lead to a greater degree of effort in served that the SL instructor typically has lim­ future work. Then, the instructor should ited control over the teaching environment, choose activities and tasks which facilitate but we would urge teachers first to push their the establishing of relationships between degree of control in this area to the maxi­ students. In addition, s/he should allow a mum, particularly concerning seating ar­ measure of choice, or control, over what is rangements, and second to monitor and be done in the classroom by the students. sensitive to changing aspects of the classroom Satisfaction can be worked toward par­ environment (noise, temperature, light). Ob­ ticularly by attending to the motivating quali­ viously, the bright, clean classroom with rele­ ties of the activities selected and the rewards vant pictures on the walls, and movable, given in the class. As far as possible, it is comfortable chairs with some support for desirable to choose learning activities which writing on, is the ideal to be striven for. have "task-endogeneous rewards" -that is, Then there are aspects of the way the they are fun to do in and of themselves. If course is conducted which contribute to a external rewards are to be given with these favorable classroom environment. Course activities, they should be unexpected, non­ goals should be known by the participants. contingent on performance. Students will Even if it is only an ordinary conversation also be more satisfied if they are given feed-

Crookes and Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 63 back when they can use it, which may be not aspects of a teacher's performance, both in only after a response, but just before the next class and out of class, but we wi II concentrate opportunity to practice. on in-class activity. In doing this first step, the .teacher will decide what data to collect and how to collect it. For self-evaluation of regu­ TEACHER SELF-EVALUATION lar teaching, audiotape is the easiest data­ collection procedure. It is a straightforward It is natural for conscientious teachers to matter to bring a small tape recorder to class, ask themselves whether a lesson (or a course) place it on a table, and set it going. Quite was successful. Consciously or uncon­ soon, students and teacher wi II ignore it. sciously, they probably do so during any More adventurous teachers may wish to ex­ given element of teaching. However, one is plore the use of videotape, where in fact more likely to be reflective at the end of a day, again both students and teachers will rapidly or a lesson, than during it, simply because of ignore the equipment. This source of data one's cognitive limitations-it is very hard to could be combined with observation by fel­ make a balanced judgment while in the midst low teachers, and even, in some situations, of teaching, because there are too many fac­ written comments from students. tors to attend to simultaneously. On the other The second stage in most cases would be hand, once the class is over, it is also difficult to review the tapes outside of class, and possi­ to make an unbiased assessment, since the bly to transcribe some of them, or some por­ data needed to do so are absent-there is tions of them. Then, third, they need to be only the memory of a very complex situation, subjected to analysis, or appraisal. The wh1ch fades quickly. Yet how can teachers teacher may decide to use one of the widely plan for future classes or find aspects of their available classroom observation schemes teaching skills to imp~ove, if they do not as­ which cover all aspects of class interaction, or sess themselves? Formative self-evaluation is simply focus on a particular element, such as needed as t~e basis for change and develop­ use of praise (see Chaudron, 1988; Long, ment, rather than summative evaluation from 1983b). If the latter, the item or behavior fo­ outside, which is often done on the basis of cused on should presumably follow from a single lesson. We need to find a way those aspects of the individual's performance for teachers to reflect on their teaching, and identified in the first "focusing" stage of the then go about improving it (cf. Cruickshank process. 1987). ' One possible system to start from in ana­ F?r present purposes, we suggest a model lyzing performance could be the self­ for th1s process based on Fleming, Fleming, evaluation checklist of Bailey and Celce­ ?ksman, & Roach (1984), who have formal­ Murcia (1979), with the teacher extending it IZed the fairly commonsense procedures that to fit his/her personal teaching concerns. need to be undertaken under four headings: However, we recommend that before com­ (l}~ioq.Jsing, (2) monitoring, (3) appraising, pleting any such checklist, the teacher should and (4~ reacting. In the first stage, the individ­ first list the main objectives of a given lesson, ual usmg this model has to decide what the in at least three categories: target language main areas of job functioning are to be, and learning objectives (e.g., plurals of nouns, how they are to be examined. This might acts of apologizing), learning skills objectives mean ref~rring to a position description, or to (e.g., asking peers or teacher for clarification, any prev1ous external supervisor's evaluation studying rules), and personal or social atti­ of ~erformance. Other organizational infor­ tudes objectives (e.g., appreciating others' mation, such as guidelines for practice or reg­ point of view, understanding the cultural con­ ular proc~dures to be followed, might be rele­ notations of target language use). We also vant. Th1s process can obviously cover all note that while the checklist items concern-

64 I Teaching Methodology

&\...... ing variety are important, other aspects of a Mohr & Maclean, 1987; Neubert & Binko, lesson should be considered, such as clarity 1987). We are also seeing increased recogni­ of teacher presentation, and appropriate se­ tion of the importance of action research (Ar­ quencing of lesson activities and tasks. gyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985), which starts Finally, if the self-evaluation process is to with the teachers' own problems and con­ have an effect, the teacher must consciously cerns. decide how to react to the information­ On the other hand, teaching will always whether change is needed, and how it can be be a series of judgment calls-the real-time achieved. Fleming et al. (1984) point out that cognitive complexity of the task means it will this phase is one where it may be beneficial to never be just a science, and will ever remain consult colleagues, because options for effec­ something of an art (cf. Clark & Lampert, ting change may not always be obvious. The 1986; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). It has been practitioner may also need to consider the purpose of this chapter to help the judg­ whether a change is feasible or essential, and ment calls to be educated, informed ones, to evaluate its likely effect on other aspects of through the teacher's combined use of the class or the teacher's procedures. Finally, knowledge and educated professional re­ if substantial change is desired, it may be flection. useful to draw up a checklist for professional development in this area, which might set as goals the development of materials, seeking regular observation and coaching from a NOTES trusted colleague, or a determination to alter one's allocation of time outside the class to 1. We are grateful to the following people for their assis­ allow for a search for professional resources tance in the preparation of this chapter. Beverly Edge, relevant to an identified teaching problem. Rosari6 Albuquerque, Juana Marin, Marisol Valcarcel and her team in Murcia, Mercedes Verdu, and Julio Roca. The primary reason for taking the sort of Portions of this chapter were also made possible through steps suggested above is to actually improve grants and support of the Social Science Research Insti­ one's own practice. However, an additional tute, University of Hawaii, the Research Corporation of incentive might come from the fact that a the University of Hawaii, and the Comite Conjunto documented plan for self-evaluation is likely Hispano-Norteamericano para Ia Cooperaci6n Cultural y Educativa, Madrid. We also acknowledge the valuable to contribute positively to any outside super­ basis provided by the article on this topic in the previous visors' evaluation. edition (Bailey & Celce-Murcia, 1979), from which we have noticeably drawn several of our ideas.

2. Our discussion is traditional to the extent that we will CONCLUSIONS not deal with approaches to SL teaching which involve going outside the classroom (e.g., Ashworth, 1985; In discussing the topic of principles of SL Fried-Booth, 1982, 1986). classroom teaching, we find vast areas of ig­ 3. What "size" the elements are is not at issue here. That norance where there should be knowledge. is to say, we are not concerned with whether the units On the one hand, teachers should know what presented are structural, functional, or the language of a relatively firm information does exist, and given pedagogical task, in an unanalyzed whole. where there is room for investigation. This 4. It should be remembered that some less traditional should obviously aid their difficult decision approaches do not require a text per se (e.g., the Silent making. Moreover, as the SL profession de­ Way, Counseling-Learning). velops, more teachers are qualified to con­ 5. We might sayre-recognition, as the idea is not a new duct their own research, or to collaborate one-see e.g., West (1960). with researchers on investigations, as is in­ 6. We should point out that we are deliberately avoiding creasingly done elsewhere in education the word "method" here-we do not accept its general (Billups & Rauth, 1987; Klinghammer, 1987; validity as a term of art or analysis (d. Richards, 1984).

Crookes anf;l Chaudron: Guidelines for Classroom Language Teaching 65

~\ .. ·. \\,.

7. It may be said that these are also supported by com­ would be for each one to teach the point in a \,I mon sense; but as this is an elusive concept which con· language unknown to the others in the group. Dis­ ti·nues to change from one generation to another, we feel cuss your feelings on once again being a second it is desirable to be able to support its prescriptions with language learner. evidence where possible. 3. Select a unit from a currently available ESL textbook. Identify ways in which it is not appro­ DISCUSSION QUESTIONS priate to your current teaching situation (e.g., wrong level, inappropriate cultural content or in­ terest level for your students, orientation toward 1. Why should the ESL teacher be concerned small/large groups). What sort of changes do you about keeping up with the results of classroom think would improve the unit? research and second language acquisition? 2. Do you agree that teachers should make their lesson objectives clear to their students? Can you think of situations in which this would be inappro­ SUGGESTIONS FOR priate? Why? FURTHER READING 3. How mqch do you think presentation, expla­ nation, and discussion of rules for language use Bossert, s. T. (1988) have a place in the Sl classroom? What underlying Cooperative Activities in the Classroom. In E. z. view of language and language learning supports Rothkopf, (ed.), Review of Research in Education your view? (vol. 1 5). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Discuss the ways in which one might investi­ 4. Provides thorough coverage of what is known gate what is the most effective way of giving feed­ about all types of cooperative learning in regular back (or correction). What data would you collect, classroom situations. and how would you identify successful correction? ( Chaudron, C. (1988) 5. Discuss ways in w~ich a teacher with a multi­ Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cam­ ~ultural group of students can best maintain a posi­ bridge University Press. tive classroom climate, promoting student interest At present the most comprehensive survey of the and motivation. state of knowledge of SL classroom research. It should be read in small bites. SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES Cruickshank, D. R. (1987) Reflective Teaching. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. 1. W!th several other teachers draw up a list of A very accessible book, which intends to aid tea~hmg behaviors or techniques that you think teachers to become more knowledgeable about are Important in your own teaching situation. Then their own practice, and encourages them to be­ observe each other, using a checklist of these be­ come lifelong students of teaching and learning. haviors as a guide. On the basis of your colleagues' o~ervations, which of these do you think you Harmer, J. (1983) need to improve or. alter? Draw up a plan for how The Practice of English Language Teaching. Lon­ you would achieve this change in your teaching. don: Longman. One of the best of the practical guides to SL teach­ 2. Prepare and compare a minilesson-as a ing (apart from the present volume) on the market. grou~, select a specific point of language form or It has a British perspective, knowledge of which function, rule of conversation, or other social use can broaden the SL teacher's horizons. of English. Individually develop a sequence of ac­ tivities that you might use to present, develop, and Neubert, G. A., & Binko, ). B. (1987) evaluate this point, and then compare your sug­ Teach-Probe-Revise: A Model for Initiating gestions. Develop a jointly agreed-upon way of Classroom Research. The Teacher Educator, 22(1 ), teaching this point and practice it with one an­ 9-17. other. A useful alternative way of practicing this Presents a simple and straightforward model

66 I Teaching Methodology

i :k. .- ... J.M which enables teachers to add an investigatory O'Neill, R. (1982) technique to their classroom teaching. This en­ Why Use Textbooks? EL T Journal, 36(2), 1 04-111 . ables them to make use of research findings, test This down-to-earth article is one of the few recent them, and add new information to existing knowl­ comprehensive considerations of just why we edge so as to aid other teachers. bother with materials.

English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Its History and Contributions

Ann M. Johns

ESP: WHAT IS IT? HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

English for Specific Purposes (ESP), by far Almost 30 years ago, ESLIEFL prac­ the largest contributor to the international titioners in many parts of the world began to movement dealing with languages for spe­ convene in order to discuss the development cific purposes, comprises a diverse group of of systematic analyses of student needs, par­ teachers and curriculum designers dedicated ticularly as they related to the features of the to the proposition that all language teaching English that students must employ in the "real must be designed for the specific learning and world." The practitioners asked, "What will language use purposes of identified groups of our students be doing with English when they­ students. The movement's practitioners can finish our classes?" (e.g., reading technical most commonly be found among those manuals, listening to academic lectures, sell­ teaching adults, who have more easily identi­ ing products). "What are the characteristics fiable needs than do children, and among of the language they need in order to suc­ those teaching abroad, where contact with ceed?" and "What are the best methods first language speakers is often not readily available for answering these questions?" available. Therefore, for teachers in English­ Since that time, ESP advocates have contin­ speaking countries who plan to work over­ ued to insist that curricula should be based seas, a knowledge of ESP and its rationale is upon the most systematic, accurate, and em­ essential. However, ESP is also important in pirical measures of student needs and of the North America; for there, it is closely allied to language required by the tasks they must per­ content-based instruction for primary and form outside of the classroom. secondary immigrant students, and to sur­ In the first phase of its history (the 1960s vival and vocational programs for adults who and the early 1970s), ESP researchers and are not native speakers of English. teachers concentrated on the sentence-level

67