Core Practice #2 |
|
link to original document
I didn’t mean to make you wait so long for Core Practice #2! Like all of you I’ve been getting my classroom organized for the school year. Though I haven’t sat down to do any planning or organize lessons yet, I have been jotting down ideas and getting my thoughts organized. I’m looking forward to sitting down and getting some things created!
If you haven’t checked out the Core Practices website, please do so. I’ve added a Pinterest board for strategies and ideas for getting to and staying in 90% target language, a forum for ideas on incentives, and a Pinterest board on ideas for incentives. I also added strategies and ideas that fellow French teachers from the French Teachers in the US group on Facebook had. Check them out! I’ll likely add any comments others have for this post as well (but I will ask for permission!).
And now-- I won’t make you wait any longer!
Core Practice #2: Design and carry out interpersonal communication tasks for pairs, small groups, and whole class instruction.
According to Dr. Eileen Glisan’s PowerPoint at #LILL2015 (July 21, 2015), Interpersonal Communication is:
-2-Way, Interactive; Clarification of Meaning possible
-Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing
-Face-to-Face or Telephone Conversation, Written messages, Correspondences
She goes on to define Interpersonal Communication in the Classroom as:
-between teacher and student(s)
-between and among students
Glisan warns us that many tasks that we think are interpersonal are actually presentational. Here are some examples of presentational activities:
-”scripted” dialogs/conversations
-scripted skits, performed in front of the class
-one student “reporting” to the other students
-activities in textbooks in which Student A knows what Student B will say and vice versa
As world language teachers, our job is to build a “Discourse” Community. So, what is discourse?
According to Teacher’s Handbook, discourse is defined as “a back-and-forth communication of thought by means of a connected series of utterances shared through social interaction and collaboration.” (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 80)
Another definition Glisan gives is: “Discourse builds on understanding which has come to be over time and various situations with both the students and the teachers acting as speakers and listeners throughout the communication.” (Wells, 199; cited in Mantero, 2002, p. 440)
Glisan referred to research done by K. Johnson. Johnson’s research determined that there are two methods of teacher-student discourse. The first, IRE, can be a stumbling block for building a discourse community according to Glisan.
IRE stands for the following:
-Teacher Initiates an assertion or asks a question
-Student Responds
-Teacher Evaluates (Very good!, Très bien!, ¡Excelente!)
Here is an example:
T: What time is it?
S: It’s 10 o’clock.
T: Right! Very good. It’s 10 o’clock.
In the IRE, the teacher ends the potential conversation when he/she has the potential to take the conversation further. Let’s look at the IRF.
IRF, a strategy that Glisan says supports interpersonal communication stands for:
-Teacher Initiates an assertion or asks a question
-Student Responds
-Teacher gives Feedback, like “Tell me more!” They also ask assisting questions and they move the conversation forward.
Now, if you are like me, you probably do both IRE and IRF. But, if I am totally honest, I probably do more IRE. Not only is this good practice in increasing the teacher-student interpersonal communication, I would also be modeling it for my students!
Think about this. When you see a colleague in the morning on the way to check their mailbox or to get that all-important first cup of coffee for the day, what sort of interpersonal communication do we have?
Mine go like this:
Me: Hey.
Them: Hi.
Me: How’s it going?
Them: Okay. You?
Me. It’s Monday…. (Or whatever day.)
We interacted, yes, but I didn’t find out a lot of information did I? Not only that, but I’m not succeeding in building any relationships, am I? I predict that if we spend more time implementing IRF, we will not only succeed in modeling effective communication, but we will make important connections to our students! Neat, huh? Something we need to teach anyway is now improving our classroom culture!
Let’s look at another scenario with a colleague.
Me: Hi!
Them: Mornin’.
Me: Are you ready for today?
Them: I guess.
Me: How is this year treating you so far?
Them: It’s going okay. What about you?
Me: I am having a good year. I have great students. What about you?
Them: (Insert praise and clear affection for students)
See? I expanded the conversation by asking further questions, I learned something more about my colleague, and I’d like to think that I’ve helped build more of a rapport. Easy enough!
Okay. So that teacher-student interpersonal communication. Let’s look at what Glisan says about student-student interpersonal communication.
According to Glisan:
-Tasks must be meaningful and interesting and feature a larger topical goal; students paired to complete mechanical exercises=NOT interpersonal.
-Students must have to listen to one another to complete the task and cannot know how other students are going to respond.
-Students ideally should do something with the information they obtain from the task.
-Students need language and strategies to negotiate meaning during the task.
Glisan referenced the research of Brooks, Donato, & MacGlone. They determined there are four mediational strategies used by students in pair/group target language tasks, that is, how students process an interpersonal activity. They are:
1-Talk about talk
2-Talk about the task
3-Use of English
4-Whispering to self
-That’s a good word for that!
(If you don’t already have them, create word walls or placemats for commonly used phrases in the TL for students to use. I’ll put some examples on my website, but I know several people have shared their creations and ideas in the French Teachers in the US group.)
2. Talk about the task is making sense of the task. An example would be (“You want me to speak and you listen?”) Brooks et al., p. 529
3. Use of English- As students think and speak through a task, they mediate their work with the language that is immediately available to them, most likely the native language. As student work through similar tasks , the use of English decreases substantially.
4. Whispering to self: Whispering is done in both L1 and L2 but diminishes when tasks become familiar.
We need to keep in mind that these behaviors are normal and with structure, modeling, and preparation of the background knowledge and vocabulary, the behaviors will decrease over time and students’ confidence will increase.
For example, Glisan shared this activity with the LILL participants. First, she asked questions that activated the vocabulary and background knowledge we would need. Here they are:
(I don’t know about you, but I see part of the AP exam here!)
Once we went over the vocabulary are background knowledge we’d need, we did the activity. Here it is:
“(These situations are on separate cards or pieces of paper so that each student sees only his/her role. Remember: That’s what makes it interpersonal and not presentational!)
“The invitation by phone: Student A
You call a good friend and invite him/her to go out and do something with you (e.g., see a movie, have dinner, go to the gym, or something else). Make the call and make small talk first. Then make the invitation. You will have to figure out together the details (such as the day, time, where you meet, etc.). Ask questions so that you are clear on the plans. After you end the call, be prepared to tell your roommate what the plan is.
“The phone call: Student B
You receive a call from a good friend inviting you to do something. Answer the phone and listen carefully to what he or she says. You will need to ask questions and decide how to respond. Also, you will need to keep in mind what’s currently on your calendar as you discuss the invitation. After you end the call, be prepared to tell your roommate about it.”
Once we completed the pair activity, we completed the reflection questions below.
Reflective Questions for Effectiveness of Interpersonal Task
(Adapted from a workshop series by Glisan & Adair-Hauck for Pittsburgh Public Schools World Language Faculty)
Glisan provided us with a template for designing an interpersonal task, taken from the same workshop in Pittsburgh.
Interpersonal Task Design Template
Overarching Theme/Topic:
Interpersonal Task:
Language function(s) needed to carry out the task:
Key vocabulary:
Key grammatical structures:
Communication strategies:
Cultural knowledge (if applicable):
I loved this template and immediately thought to the many interpersonal activities I do and how I can improve them. I also created about a dozen new ones once I saw the breakdown of an effective interpersonal task. I hope you have the same reaction!
Now, you might be wondering how to effectively assess interpersonal tasks. For this, Glisan referred once again to the Teacher’s Handbook (2010) and “TALK SCORES”. Now, I’m not going to go into great detail here. I highly recommend you get a copy of this book if you don’t already have it. I will go into the What, When, Why, and How, as Shrum and Glisan have established in their book for using “TALK SCORES.”
“What: An uncomplicated way to assess student performance during small group activities.
When: As often as possible and as much as you can observe during a group activity.
Why: Often we have subjective impressions (often correct!!!) about a student’s level of participation, cooperation, performance. The TALK SCORES allow you to compare your impressions with real classroom performance.
How: Each letter of the word TALK represents on PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE to be observed during small group activity. During an activity, the teacher should select only ONE objective to observe. The goal should be that at the end of one or two weeks, students have been observed for ALL FOUR performance objectives.”
T= Talking in the target language
A= Accurate
L= Listening
K= Kind
(Now, I’m not going to go into how these things are assessed, but I’ll see if I can find a link for more information and I’ll post it on my website. Personally, I LOVE this method. It makes sense, promotes good communication, and it goes back to building a community!)
Post-Task Possibilities?
Remember that an interpersonal task must require that students do something with the information they learned. Here are some examples for the phone call activity above that Glisan shared in her PowerPoint (July 21,2015):
“Novice: Tell your roommate about your plans with your other friend so that he or she knows you will be gone. What are you going to do and when?” (My note: Remember that ACTFL Proficiency Levels indicate that a novice speaker can communicate minimally, about themselves, and in an informal way.)
“Intermediate: Describe the plan to your roommate with vivid details about the activity, place where you will go, why you are interested in that activity.” (My note: ACTFL Proficiency Levels indicate that intermediate speakers can communicate informally and in predictable ways, adding more detail, creating language.)
“Advanced: Report to your roommate how your phone call unfolded. What was the invitation? What did you say? What did your friend say? What are you going to do together and when?” (My note: ACTFL Proficiency Levels indicate that advanced speakers are able to narrate and describe with a change in time frame, in this case past tense as he/she recalls the conversation.)
Your take-aways for Core Practice #2 are:
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, V. (1997). When are they going to say “it” right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 524-541.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mantero, M. (2002). Bridging the gap: Discourse in text-based foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 437-455.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
I didn’t mean to make you wait so long for Core Practice #2! Like all of you I’ve been getting my classroom organized for the school year. Though I haven’t sat down to do any planning or organize lessons yet, I have been jotting down ideas and getting my thoughts organized. I’m looking forward to sitting down and getting some things created!
If you haven’t checked out the Core Practices website, please do so. I’ve added a Pinterest board for strategies and ideas for getting to and staying in 90% target language, a forum for ideas on incentives, and a Pinterest board on ideas for incentives. I also added strategies and ideas that fellow French teachers from the French Teachers in the US group on Facebook had. Check them out! I’ll likely add any comments others have for this post as well (but I will ask for permission!).
And now-- I won’t make you wait any longer!
Core Practice #2: Design and carry out interpersonal communication tasks for pairs, small groups, and whole class instruction.
According to Dr. Eileen Glisan’s PowerPoint at #LILL2015 (July 21, 2015), Interpersonal Communication is:
-2-Way, Interactive; Clarification of Meaning possible
-Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing
-Face-to-Face or Telephone Conversation, Written messages, Correspondences
She goes on to define Interpersonal Communication in the Classroom as:
-between teacher and student(s)
-between and among students
Glisan warns us that many tasks that we think are interpersonal are actually presentational. Here are some examples of presentational activities:
-”scripted” dialogs/conversations
-scripted skits, performed in front of the class
-one student “reporting” to the other students
-activities in textbooks in which Student A knows what Student B will say and vice versa
As world language teachers, our job is to build a “Discourse” Community. So, what is discourse?
According to Teacher’s Handbook, discourse is defined as “a back-and-forth communication of thought by means of a connected series of utterances shared through social interaction and collaboration.” (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 80)
Another definition Glisan gives is: “Discourse builds on understanding which has come to be over time and various situations with both the students and the teachers acting as speakers and listeners throughout the communication.” (Wells, 199; cited in Mantero, 2002, p. 440)
Glisan referred to research done by K. Johnson. Johnson’s research determined that there are two methods of teacher-student discourse. The first, IRE, can be a stumbling block for building a discourse community according to Glisan.
IRE stands for the following:
-Teacher Initiates an assertion or asks a question
-Student Responds
-Teacher Evaluates (Very good!, Très bien!, ¡Excelente!)
Here is an example:
T: What time is it?
S: It’s 10 o’clock.
T: Right! Very good. It’s 10 o’clock.
In the IRE, the teacher ends the potential conversation when he/she has the potential to take the conversation further. Let’s look at the IRF.
IRF, a strategy that Glisan says supports interpersonal communication stands for:
-Teacher Initiates an assertion or asks a question
-Student Responds
-Teacher gives Feedback, like “Tell me more!” They also ask assisting questions and they move the conversation forward.
Now, if you are like me, you probably do both IRE and IRF. But, if I am totally honest, I probably do more IRE. Not only is this good practice in increasing the teacher-student interpersonal communication, I would also be modeling it for my students!
Think about this. When you see a colleague in the morning on the way to check their mailbox or to get that all-important first cup of coffee for the day, what sort of interpersonal communication do we have?
Mine go like this:
Me: Hey.
Them: Hi.
Me: How’s it going?
Them: Okay. You?
Me. It’s Monday…. (Or whatever day.)
We interacted, yes, but I didn’t find out a lot of information did I? Not only that, but I’m not succeeding in building any relationships, am I? I predict that if we spend more time implementing IRF, we will not only succeed in modeling effective communication, but we will make important connections to our students! Neat, huh? Something we need to teach anyway is now improving our classroom culture!
Let’s look at another scenario with a colleague.
Me: Hi!
Them: Mornin’.
Me: Are you ready for today?
Them: I guess.
Me: How is this year treating you so far?
Them: It’s going okay. What about you?
Me: I am having a good year. I have great students. What about you?
Them: (Insert praise and clear affection for students)
See? I expanded the conversation by asking further questions, I learned something more about my colleague, and I’d like to think that I’ve helped build more of a rapport. Easy enough!
Okay. So that teacher-student interpersonal communication. Let’s look at what Glisan says about student-student interpersonal communication.
According to Glisan:
-Tasks must be meaningful and interesting and feature a larger topical goal; students paired to complete mechanical exercises=NOT interpersonal.
-Students must have to listen to one another to complete the task and cannot know how other students are going to respond.
-Students ideally should do something with the information they obtain from the task.
-Students need language and strategies to negotiate meaning during the task.
Glisan referenced the research of Brooks, Donato, & MacGlone. They determined there are four mediational strategies used by students in pair/group target language tasks, that is, how students process an interpersonal activity. They are:
1-Talk about talk
2-Talk about the task
3-Use of English
4-Whispering to self
- Talk about talk is also known as “metatalk”. Examples are:
-That’s a good word for that!
(If you don’t already have them, create word walls or placemats for commonly used phrases in the TL for students to use. I’ll put some examples on my website, but I know several people have shared their creations and ideas in the French Teachers in the US group.)
2. Talk about the task is making sense of the task. An example would be (“You want me to speak and you listen?”) Brooks et al., p. 529
3. Use of English- As students think and speak through a task, they mediate their work with the language that is immediately available to them, most likely the native language. As student work through similar tasks , the use of English decreases substantially.
4. Whispering to self: Whispering is done in both L1 and L2 but diminishes when tasks become familiar.
We need to keep in mind that these behaviors are normal and with structure, modeling, and preparation of the background knowledge and vocabulary, the behaviors will decrease over time and students’ confidence will increase.
For example, Glisan shared this activity with the LILL participants. First, she asked questions that activated the vocabulary and background knowledge we would need. Here they are:
- In your target language, how do you call a friend on your cell phone? How do you answer the phone when receiving a call?
- How do you invite a friend to do something? What are some things you could invite a friend to do?
- How do accept the invitation?
- What will the two of you have to decide?
(I don’t know about you, but I see part of the AP exam here!)
Once we went over the vocabulary are background knowledge we’d need, we did the activity. Here it is:
“(These situations are on separate cards or pieces of paper so that each student sees only his/her role. Remember: That’s what makes it interpersonal and not presentational!)
“The invitation by phone: Student A
You call a good friend and invite him/her to go out and do something with you (e.g., see a movie, have dinner, go to the gym, or something else). Make the call and make small talk first. Then make the invitation. You will have to figure out together the details (such as the day, time, where you meet, etc.). Ask questions so that you are clear on the plans. After you end the call, be prepared to tell your roommate what the plan is.
“The phone call: Student B
You receive a call from a good friend inviting you to do something. Answer the phone and listen carefully to what he or she says. You will need to ask questions and decide how to respond. Also, you will need to keep in mind what’s currently on your calendar as you discuss the invitation. After you end the call, be prepared to tell your roommate about it.”
Once we completed the pair activity, we completed the reflection questions below.
Reflective Questions for Effectiveness of Interpersonal Task
(Adapted from a workshop series by Glisan & Adair-Hauck for Pittsburgh Public Schools World Language Faculty)
- Did you need to listen to your partner in order to complete the task?
- Was the task engaging; that is, were you motivated to listen to your partner to complete the task?
- Did the task promote the negotiation of meaning or conversational adjustments? If so, when? Please explain.
- Did the task require the use of vocabulary and grammatical structures indicated? Any comments?
- Did the task require cultural knowledge?
- Do you have any suggestions that might increase the interactivity of the task?
Glisan provided us with a template for designing an interpersonal task, taken from the same workshop in Pittsburgh.
Interpersonal Task Design Template
Overarching Theme/Topic:
Interpersonal Task:
Language function(s) needed to carry out the task:
Key vocabulary:
Key grammatical structures:
Communication strategies:
Cultural knowledge (if applicable):
I loved this template and immediately thought to the many interpersonal activities I do and how I can improve them. I also created about a dozen new ones once I saw the breakdown of an effective interpersonal task. I hope you have the same reaction!
Now, you might be wondering how to effectively assess interpersonal tasks. For this, Glisan referred once again to the Teacher’s Handbook (2010) and “TALK SCORES”. Now, I’m not going to go into great detail here. I highly recommend you get a copy of this book if you don’t already have it. I will go into the What, When, Why, and How, as Shrum and Glisan have established in their book for using “TALK SCORES.”
“What: An uncomplicated way to assess student performance during small group activities.
When: As often as possible and as much as you can observe during a group activity.
Why: Often we have subjective impressions (often correct!!!) about a student’s level of participation, cooperation, performance. The TALK SCORES allow you to compare your impressions with real classroom performance.
How: Each letter of the word TALK represents on PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE to be observed during small group activity. During an activity, the teacher should select only ONE objective to observe. The goal should be that at the end of one or two weeks, students have been observed for ALL FOUR performance objectives.”
T= Talking in the target language
A= Accurate
L= Listening
K= Kind
(Now, I’m not going to go into how these things are assessed, but I’ll see if I can find a link for more information and I’ll post it on my website. Personally, I LOVE this method. It makes sense, promotes good communication, and it goes back to building a community!)
Post-Task Possibilities?
Remember that an interpersonal task must require that students do something with the information they learned. Here are some examples for the phone call activity above that Glisan shared in her PowerPoint (July 21,2015):
“Novice: Tell your roommate about your plans with your other friend so that he or she knows you will be gone. What are you going to do and when?” (My note: Remember that ACTFL Proficiency Levels indicate that a novice speaker can communicate minimally, about themselves, and in an informal way.)
“Intermediate: Describe the plan to your roommate with vivid details about the activity, place where you will go, why you are interested in that activity.” (My note: ACTFL Proficiency Levels indicate that intermediate speakers can communicate informally and in predictable ways, adding more detail, creating language.)
“Advanced: Report to your roommate how your phone call unfolded. What was the invitation? What did you say? What did your friend say? What are you going to do together and when?” (My note: ACTFL Proficiency Levels indicate that advanced speakers are able to narrate and describe with a change in time frame, in this case past tense as he/she recalls the conversation.)
Your take-aways for Core Practice #2 are:
- Interpersonal communication is listening, speaking, reading, AND writing.
- Interpersonal communication is 2-way, with clarification for meaning, and in a variety of ways.
- It is accomplished teacher-student AND student-student.
- Interpersonal communication tasks are NOT scripted. It is NOT reporting.
- Teachers can build a “discourse” community through IRF and modeling.
- Interpersonal tasks need to be meaningful, have an exchange of information, and a post-task.
- Students have mediational strategies for processing interpersonal tasks in the beginning, but with structure and practice they will decrease.
- Teachers should determine the vocabulary and background knowledge needed for the task, and prepare students accordingly.
- The same task can be used at a variety of proficiency levels. Post-tasks should vary by level.
- Are your student activities truly interpersonal?
- Do you include teacher-student AND student-student interpersonal communication?
- What percentage of time do you do IRE? And IRF?
- How can you develop your skills in IRF?
- How can you create you interpersonal tasks? What changes do you need to make to make them true interpersonal communication?
- Have you notices students mediational strategies? Do you address them?How can you decrease student anxiety for interpersonal tasks?
- How do you prepare students for interpersonal tasks?
- How do you assess interpersonal tasks?
- What kinds of post-tasks so you create for students?
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, V. (1997). When are they going to say “it” right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 524-541.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mantero, M. (2002). Bridging the gap: Discourse in text-based foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 437-455.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Here is a presentation by Laura Terrill on Assessing Interpersonal Communication. It has many of the same ideas. Check it out!
|