Interjecting Activities into the EFL Classroom
Many native English-speaking EFL teachers in Korea interject activities of one sort or another into their English classes, considering them to be pedagogically sound. Not all English teachers or administrators in Korea, however, are so quick to espouse the use of activities as educational or appropriate for language learning. There are many tales of the school principal checking in on the English classroom where an activity was underway and reprimanding the teacher for allowing the students to play rather than study. To this principal, and many other educators in this country, “classroom learning” still means that the students are seated quietly, listening to a teacher standing at the chalkboard and presenting information for the students to memorize.
The stereotypical view still quite persistent around the world is that education is not something to be enjoyed – it is not fun; it is not noisy; it is not students talking to other students in class. However, beginning with John Dewey around 1900, educators have been telling us that learning is a social and interactive process. Lev Vygotsky, Michael Long, Merrill Swain, Jack Richards, Rod Ellis and David Nunan – some of the biggest names in their fields – advocate the view of interaction as being necessary for learning (and language learning) to occur. Therefore, in order for effective and meaningful interaction to occur in the language-learning classroom, students will be talking to each other (in the target language), the room will be noisy, the students will be animated and they will be enjoying the learning process.
The previous statement does not mean, however, that if we merely allow students to talk to each other, allow them to be active and allow them to have fun, they will be learning English. A language-learning activity needs to be well- structured and well-planned. In addition to being interesting and interactive, a language-learning activity should have a clear linguistic goal, and it should be linguistically challenging. Activities are often most effective if they are realistic and if they incorporate the new language for the language learners. Stimulating higher-order learning is another characteristic of a highly-effective language learning activity.
Interesting and Interactive
Learning occurs much more readily when the material is of interest to the learner. It is therefore the teacher’s task to know their students’ likes and dislikes, their dreams and their dreads, their heroes and heroines, and to cater the language-learning activities that they create to the students’ interests. Language-learning activities should also be interactive. “Interactive” does not mean “interactive” in the computer programming sense, but in the sense that learners are interacting with other learners and with the teacher. In addition to raising learners’ interest, interaction provides a means for students to learn languages from other students. Both interest and interactions generate learner motivation.
Linguistic Goals and Linguistically Challenging
Each language-learning activity should have a clear goal that the learner is expected to reach through participating in the activity. It is a not uncommon fallacy for a teacher to select an activity only because the students like it, not considering whether it contains any language-learning value or whether it serves a purpose that the students need more practice in. The goal could be anything from additional practice with the already-introduced vocabulary to the use of new expressions. The goal could be to improve accuracy or fluency. The activity should also be challenging, but not overly challenging, which would cause the learners to be unsuccessful during the activities, but slightly challenging; a challenge that the learners can be successful at understanding. Where there is a lack of challenge, there is a lack of interest; where there is a lack of interest, there is a lack of motivation; where there is a lack of motivation, there is a lack of learning.
Realistic and Mentally Challenging
From the beginning, applied linguist Michael Long has contended that activities should be real tasks: “the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, and in between.” Once brought into the classroom, such tasks are no longer real, but they may be made as realistic as possible, simulating real-world activities. However, we cannot create fictitious or fantastical situations for learners to deal with – after all, we do fantasize in real life. Activities should instead include an element of mental exercise. They should nudge the learners into higher-order thinking to stimulate not only linguistic but also cognitive development.
Categories of Activities
Language-learning activities can be categorized into three types: (a) mechanical, (b) information-gap and (c) authentic-language-producing activities. Mechanical activities have the learner manipulate forms, such as verb forms: I go – he goes – it goes – they go. It is often desirable to set such manipulation within a scenario in which meaningful exchanges take place. Information-gap activities are those in which each of the students, in a pair or small group, has some of the information but must interact with the other members of the group to obtain all of the information needed. A restaurant menu or train schedule of which each student has some of the information, but also has some information missing, is typical for such activities, and the students must interact to complete their menu or timetable. Authentic language-producing activities place far less control on learner output. The learner is free to decide on the language they will use to attempt to complete the tasks at hand.
Controlled Activities
Controlled language-learning activities are more common for instruction with lower-proficiency learners. They are often grammar-focused activities, and as such, they are focused on accuracy, having the learner produce error-free speech. Therefore, frequent error-corrections take place. Because the correct forms are often given in advance, learners are less likely to make mistakes, thereby making the activities more like confidence-building tasks. For such activities, the teacher functions as a “conductor,” much like a musical conductor over his orchestra. The conductor merely directs; his orchestra produces the sound.
With controlled activities, comprehension checks are frequent and are often an integral part of the activity. In “listen-and-repeat” activities, the learner’s repetition of the teacher’s cues is the comprehension check. In the TPR (total physical response) activity, the student performing as directed by the teacher (e.g., “Go to the door and open it”) is the check. The response at the end of the chain drill is also the check, as is the check of a Bingo card when the learner calls out a win.
Free Activities
A free activity is one in which the learner’s production is more spontaneous, and therefore more unpredictable. Such activities are more frequently used with upper-levels of learner proficiency. These activities are fluency-focused rather than accuracy-focused. Their goal is to produce smooth, flowing speeches without many breaks where the learner hesitates in an attempt at correctness. Correction of errors is not stressed, and corrective feedback is given at the end of the activity so as not to be interruptive during the speech. New language is integrated with the old, and language is constructed rather than replicated, as is common in controlled activities.
With free activities, what is assessed is the learner’s ability to extend their language use beyond that which they are already able to use relatively well. When learners are engaged in free activities, the teacher acts as a monitor, extending help and assessing as the learner participates in activities such as role-plays and discussions of a wide variety of types. Discussions are often of a given situation in which group decision-making must take place or a consensus must be reached. They may be on such controversial topics as abortion, divorce or euthanasia, and they may be discussed in the form of a debate. Task-based activities as set out in TBLT (task-based language teaching) as well as project-based activities have varied outcomes which can also be assessed.
It is not the intention here to give the impression that free activities are better than controlled activities, or that authentic language-producing activities are better than mechanical activities. They all have their time and place in the process of “growing” the learner. This article’s purpose is to implant well-planned activities as a great way to develop the learner’s language skills in a classroom context.
________________________________________
Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL
Monthly Chapter Meeting
Date & Time: January 10 (Saturday), 1:45 p.m.
Place: Chosun University, Main Building, Left Wing, Room 4211
- Presentation: How Suspending Judgment Can Help Us Reflect on Teaching (even though it can be hard to do!)
Bryan Hale (Sunkyung Academy, Gwangju)
- Presentation: Developing Critical Global Citizens: A Lesson for the Teacher?
Jocelyn Wright (Mokpo National University)
Reflective Practice Session, 11 a.m.
Admission: No Charge
For More Details:
Facebook: Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL
Website: http://koreatesol.org/gwangju
Email: gwangju@koreatesol.org
Twitter: @GwangjuKOTESOL