The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills ...

The effects of strategytraining on developingdiscussion skills in an ESLclassroom

Wendy Lam and Jennie Wong

Between February and May 1997, 58 sixth form students from Hong Kongwere trained in the use of strategies during group discussions. Before thecourse began, questionnaires were completed by 24 practising teachers,and analyses of transcripts were taken during a pre-training discussiontask. These identified the following key strategies which students need inorder to play an effective part in discussion: seeking clarification, clarifyingoneself, and checking that other people have understood one's message.Based on these findings, and on analysis of transcripts from the pre-training tasks, an action plan was drawn up, and teaching materials weredeveloped which incorporated strategies designed to be used in trainingthe students. The analyses indicated that learners made more attempts toseek clarification and to clarify themselves in the post-training discussiontask than in the pre-training task. However, they also showed more in-cidents of ineffective than effective use of these strategies in the post-training discussion. While these results tended to support the value ofstrategy training, they raised two basic issues regarding strategies-basedinstruction: (1) the necessity to support strategy training with linguisticscaffolding, and (2) the importance of peer help and co-operation infacilitating strategy use.

Introduction To underscore the importance of oral skills, and bring about positivewashback into classroom teaching, the Hong Kong ExaminationsAuthority (HKEA) has introduced a small group discussion componentinto its public examinations. The discussion examination has a similarformat to the interview examination in the Cambridge First Certificate inEnglish (FCE) examination, with groups of four candidates taking part ina number of communicative activities which may involve problemsolving, planning, role playing, etc. The two examiners observe but donot take part in the activities. In the 12-minute discussion, the examinersassess how well the candidates communicate with each other whenengaging in the activities. While most teachers are already familiar withthe format of the oral examination, many have been trying to adapt tothis new testing format. At best, some teachers only introduce students toa set of formulaic phrases and expressions for use in academic discussion(Lam 1995: 244). Most teachers are not aware of the role of interactionstrategies or the value of strategy training in promoting interactivespeaking skills (Bejarano, Levine, Olshtain, and Steiner 1997: 203).

ELT Journal Volume 54/3 July 2000 © Oxford University Press 2000 245

at Serial Record on M

ay 10, 2016http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Review of the In recent years within the language learning field, a lot of attention hasliterature been given to the importance of strategy training. The literature is

replete with strategy training studies attempting to enhance the learningoutcome (for recent reviews, see Cohen 1998: 66; Oxford 1996: 3). Muchresearch has been conducted to understand the use of learning strategiesin the teaching and learning of vocabulary (e.g. Brown and Perry 1991:655), listening comprehension (e.g. Rost and Ross 1991: 235), reading(e.g. Rusciolelli 1995: 262), and in the understanding of the learningprocess (e.g. Chamot 1993: 308; Nunan 1997: 56). However, relativelylittle research has been done on productive skills, such as writing andspeaking. Of the few studies that have dealt with strategy instruction inspeaking, only Bejarano et al. (ibid.: 211) has dealt with speaking as aninteractive skill.

Bejarano et al. (ibid.: 204) contend that it is essential to teach studentshow to participate in the negotiation of meaning necessary for thecomprehensible input and output which are crucial to second languageacquisition (Pica 1987: 3). The negotiation process can be facilitated bytraining learners in the skilled use of interaction strategies duringdiscussion. The results of the strategy study carried out by Bejarano et al.(ibid.) indicated that there was a decrease in incidences where learnersdid not participate actively in discussions. Their results also showed thatthe quality of participation in the experimental groups was enhanced bythe use of interaction strategies.

Aims of the study The primary aim of the present study, therefore, was to see how trainingin interaction strategies might be pertinent to the development of oralcompetence in the ESL secondary classroom. The main focus was toimplement and evaluate strategy training in group discussion. The small-scale pilot study also aimed to examine the quantity (frequency) andquality (effectiveness) of strategy use after training. Two particularresearch questions were addressed:

1 Will the subjects use the selected interaction strategies in groupdiscussion after training?

2 Will the subjects use the selected interaction strategies effectivelyafter training?

Fifty-eight sixth form ('secondary sixth') students of about 17 years ofage, who had previously studied English as a second language for 13-14years in Hong Kong, participated in this study. Most of them had gainedat least a grade D (grade E was a pass) in the Hong Kong Certificate inEducation Examination, so their English language proficiency wasconsidered to be of average to above-average level.

Procedures Selecting strategies for trainingBased on Bejarano et al.'s (ibid.: 205) list of interaction strategies, wedesigned a group discussion strategies questionnaire. Its aim was tosolicit the views of practising, experienced teachers as to what strategies

Research designSubjects

246 Wendy Lam and Jennie Wong



Dow

nloaded from


Results andfindings

Frequency ofstrategy use

they considered the students needed most in group discussion. From thequestionnaire findings, we decided to select three strategies for training:

(1) clarifying oneself, (2) seeking clarification, and (3) checking one'sunderstanding of other people's messages.

Developing training materialsThree consecutive lessons were planned, based on material adaptedfrom one of the students' coursebooks (for a selected sample, seeAppendix 1). The objectives of the three lessons were as follows:

Lesson One: Awareness raising and introduction1 Raising students' awareness of the nature and value of interaction

strategies.2 Teaching and providing practice on 'clarifying oneself.

Lesson Two: Reinforcement1 Reinforcing students' use of 'clarifying oneself.2 Teaching and providing extended practice for 'seeking clarification'

and 'checking one's understanding of other people's' messages'.

Lesson Three: Consolidation and revision1 Revising, practising, and consolidating the use of the three interaction

strategies.

Assessing the impact of strategy trainingTo assess the impact of strategy training on task performance, all thesubjects were asked to tape a group discussion task on a pre- and post-training basis. The transcripts of the post-training recordings werereviewed, and compared with those of the pre-training discussion toexamine if training had been effective and, if so, in what way.

In the following episode, taken from a pre-training recording, studentswho had assumed the role of managers in a factory had to decide on thetypes of toys that should be manufactured (see Appendix 2).

LineA: OK, let's start. Which type of toy do you think will sell the best, E? rE: Em . . . I think monopoly would sell the best because I think this this

toy eh was is suitable for both girls and boys and that many peoplewould come together and play it so I think it is best.

A: How about you? 5B: Eh I'm not I don't agree with her eh because monopoly is eh avoid

bring game for children nowadays. I think Barbie toys are dolls willbe the best because it has a long term success and eh the productioncost is low . . .

A: How about you C? 10C: I think in handle electric games seem to be the toy of the future.B: Eh but in my own point I think we should the best selling toys is

some of the education type toy because eh because I think parentswould like it . . .

D: Eh in my opinion eh the toy or the Linsaid Tortoise will sell the best. 15Eh over the last 20 years the best selling item have usually been

The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom 247



Dow

nloaded from


based on popular films or TV programmes so I think LinsaidTortoise will sell the best.

C: Eh but I think the Linsaid Tortoise hot has already passed.Nowadays modern children will not like this kind of toy . . . 20

A: I absolutely agree with you. (Laughter) I think em . . .

In this pre-training episode, students did not have much genuineinteraction with one another. It appeared that the predominant role ofthe chairperson, (A), was to invite members to express opinions on whattypes of toys to manufacture (lines 1, 5,10). In response to A, memberstook turns to state what they believed the factory should manufactureand gave their reasons accordingly (lines 2-4, 6-9, 11). There was notmuch interaction between members; the only form of interaction wasagreement or disagreement, followed by reasons (lines 6-9, 12-14,15-18, 19-20). Apart from this kind of turn-taking response, the groupdid not really interact with one another. It later emerged that a lack ofinteraction was quite typical of other groups in most of the pre-trainingrecordings.

Analysis of the post-training transcript of the same discussion grouprevealed some evidence of seeking clarification, and clarifying one-self—strategies which had not been found in their pre-trainingrecording. In the following episode, the group was exchanging opinionson how to spend the HK$100,000 so that students could enjoy a broaderrange of sports in their school (see Appendix 2).

LineA: I think Eh . . . hiking, hiking is the suitable one. Eh . . . Hiking is not

expensive and when we're hiking, we can . . . we can see the wild lifeand the natural environment. What is your opinion, B?

B: I'm not really sure that I'd go along with C's suggestion because itcould only involve a few students, not the whole school. 5

A: Can you clarify your point? I don't get your point, (seekingclarification)

B: I think it is not easily to attract more students to join it. (clarifyingoneself) 10

A: So you don't agree, (checking understanding)B: No, I don ' t . . . I think swimming is the best activity we should choice

because it can attract more student to join it and it is not too expensivefor we to . . . for we to book swimming pool. Do you agree, C? 15

C: I agree with you up to a point because swimming is really a very goodsport. But booking a swimming pool is really very expensive.

A: 'I don't really understand what you mean' 'Good Sport', (seekingclarification) 20

C: Oh! It is healthy and can keep fit. (clarifying oneself)D: I also disagree with B's idea. I think swimming is Eh . . . swimming

which only limited in summer.A: Limited? 25D: Limited! Limited in summer, in summer only. And I think some of

the money can spend on the urh . . .A: On what? (seeking clarification)


I



Dow

nloaded from


D: For example the volleyball and basketball Eh . . . badminton,something like that. Because it's common to student, (clarifyingoneself) 30

In this extract, the students were able to build in some requests forclarification and attempts to clarify oneself to strengthen their reasonsfor agreeing or disagreeing. A, for example, appealed directly forclarification from B by indicating non-understanding, in 'Can youclarify? I don't get your point' (line 8). Subsequently, B clarified herselfwith 'it is not easily to attract more students to join it' (line 10), whichwas a rephrasing of 'it could only involve a few students, not the wholeschool' (lines 6-7). A then checked his understanding of B's standpointby confirming with B that she did not agree to hiking as a goodsuggestion: 'So you don't agree?' (line 12). B then clarified herstandpoint by explicitly stating that she did not agree: 'No, I don't . . . '(line 13). So there was some evidence of seeking clarification andclarifying oneself in this post-training transcript. As the discussioncontinued, A made a good attempt at seeking clarification by asking Cwhat 'good sport' meant (line 20). C then clarified himself by giving theexplanation 'Oh! It's healthy and can keep fit' (line 22). Finally, Asought clarification from D by asking her to complete her unfinishedutterance 'on what?' (line 28). This no doubt obliged D to clarify herself,since she then supplied several examples, e.g. 'the volleyball andbasketball Eh . . . badminton' (line 29), and a brief explanation: 'becauseit's common to students' (line 30).

In the aforementioned post-training extract, the driving force of thediscussion seemed to lie with the persistent effort of A to seekclarification and the co-operation of the group members to respond tohis appeal and clarify themselves. We believe that this indicated animprovement in group interaction because the group members—incontrast to their behaviour before the training—did not simply taketurns to express agreement or disagreement. Instead, they were able toask questions to clarify ambiguities, and to co-operate by clarifying one'sambiguities. In this way, group interaction was enhanced by the use ofinteraction strategies.

So far, the results appear to indicate that the frequency of strategy useincreased after the training, which may be regarded as evidence of anadvancement in strategy use. However, a higher frequency per se doesnot necessarily guarantee successful interaction. In fact, it is thequality—effectiveness of strategy use—that plays a more importantpart in bringing about effective communication. In the following section,we will look at the results with regard to the quality of interaction.

Effectiveness of Results of the present research have indicated, disappointingly, thatstrategy use there were not many instances of successful and effective use of

interaction strategies in the post-training task. Many learners tried toclarify their ideas but were not quite successful, as in the followingextract, for example, where B was suggesting that the school shouldspend the HK$100,000 on the purchase of the 'basket need for




Dow

nloaded from


basketball' (line 2). Unfortunately, she was not able to clarify what'basket' meant (line 9).

LineA: OK. OK. How about you, B? 1B: OK. A. Let me think. I think a basket is needed for basketball.C: Should we go back to basketball?B: I don't know what to say!D: What do you meant by basket? (seeking clarification) 5B: A basket need for basketball, (attempting to clarify oneself)D: I don't get your point, (seeking clarification)A: Can you clarify it? (seeking clarification)B: I'm sorry. I can't clarify it.C: Oh, no! Then we go to next point. How the money should be spent?

Spent spent on what? Spent on swimming or ice-skating? Spent onbuy buy the equipment? 10

Two points are worth noticing here. First, the problem seemed to liewith B's limited linguistic resources, which prevented her from usingother words to clarify herself. This meant that in trying to clarify herself,B seemed to have no option but to repeat herself, ('a basket need forbasketball', line 6), having previously said 'I think a basket is needed forbasketball' (line 2). When pushed further to clarify herself, she couldonly resort to admitting that she was not able to do so, by saying 'I'msorry. I can't clarify it' (line 9). We therefore concluded that her limitedlanguage proficiency may have inhibited her from deploying theclarification strategy to produce comprehensible output.

The second point is that in addition to limited language proficiency, alack of sympathy and co-operation from peers to recognize someone'sdifficulty in clarifying themself may also lead to ineffective strategy use.In the aforementioned episode, for example, instead of trying to offer tohelp B, C immediately suggested moving on to the next point by saying'Oh, no! Then we go to next point' (line 10). This could be verydiscouraging to B, who might have felt ashamed of not being able toexplain herself clearly. One could easily feel that the group was notparticularly cohesive, and that the members did not support each otherin trying out interaction strategies.

The following episode, recorded from another group, seems to confirmthe importance of group cohesiveness in sustaining meaningful inter-action. It shows that ineffective or unsuccessful attempts to deployclarification strategies due to limited language proficiency might becompensated for by mutual understanding and co-operation. In otherwords, peer help is a crucial factor in the successful deployment ofinteraction strategies. In the episode, speaker A was suggesting that theschool use the HK$100,000 to sponsor outdoor activities such as'swimming', 'picnicking', and 'fund walk' (lines 1-2).

LineA: . . . outdoor activities. For example swimming, and it go to picnic and

what, let me see, and fund walk. 1




Dow

nloaded from


B: Can you clarify that? (seeking clarification)A: Fund . . . walk have very . . . it have very . . . it have many benefits. If

we held a fund walk. It have very . . . many benefits. One is urh . . .(clarifying oneself) 5

C: What's fund walk? (seeking clarification)A: Fund walk, it means we walk, it just like million-walk, is it?

(clarifying oneself and checking understanding)C: Walkathon.A Yeah, fund-walk . . . it just mean a some . . . it just like million- 10

walk. One point is that we can we can raise the money and we canheld the outdoor raise the money for the to improve the studyenvironment... very good point, (clarifying oneself)

In this episode, B's request for the clarification of 'fund walk' (line 3)was well received and responded to by A's persistent effort to clarifyhimself several times (lines 4-5, 8, 11-14). Crucially, his checking ofothers' understanding of his message led to an immediate response, withC's supply of the synonym 'walkathon' (line 10). In consequence, A wasencouraged to further clarify his point (lines 11-14). Commendably,members of this group tried hard to support each other, which meantthat their use of interaction strategies could be deployed and sustainedmore effectively in spite of certain linguistic problems.

Conclusions and To conclude, the main findings of this pilot study are that: (1) trainingimplications for resulted in a greater use of interaction strategies, and more genuine

interaction in group discussion, (2) there were more incidents ofineffective than effective use of interaction strategies in the post-trainingdiscussion, and (3) peer help and co-operation might compensate for theineffective use of interaction strategies due to limited languageproficiency.

In the light of the above findings, we would recommend that in order tohelp learners use interaction strategies effectively, strategy training hasto be complemented by linguistic support. Non-proficient learners whoare given language help will be able to use interaction strategies moreeffectively than those who are not. This is particularly true whenlearners need language support to clarify themselves, since strategytraining alone would not be adequate. Strategy training shouldemphasize team work, so that when learners recognize the need forclarification and co-operation, they would be motivated to useclarification strategies. Subsequently, if members were to offer peersupport, learners would be encouraged—and pushed—to try clarifica-tion strategies. Peer help and co-operation, therefore, are of paramountimportance to sustaining clarification for genuine interaction. A lack ofsympathy and peer support would only result, at best, in sporadic andunstructured attempts to clarify oneself, or to seek clarification. Atworst, learners who have attempted to deploy strategies might bediscouraged, and stop using them altogether.

Received June 1999




Dow

nloaded from


ReferencesBejarano, Y., T. Levine, E. Olshtain, and J.

Steiner. 1997. 'The skilled use of interactionstrategies: creating a framework for improvedsmall-group communicative interaction in thelanguage classroom'. System 25/2: 203-14.

Brown, T. and F. Perry. 1991. 'A comparison ofthree learning strategies for ESL vocabularyacquisition'. TESOL Quarterly 25/4: 655-71.

Chamot, A. U. 1993. 'Student responses tolearning strategy instruction in the foreignlanguage classroom'. Foreign Language Annals26/3: 308-21.

Cohen, A. D. 1998. Strategies in Learning andUsing a Second Language. New York: AddisonWesley Longman.

Lam, H. P. 1995. 'Coping with the group discus-sion format in public examinations' in P. Storey,V. Berry, D. Bunton, and P. Hoare (eds.). 1995.Issues in Language in Education. Selected

papers from the International Language inEducation Conference 1995. The Hong KongInstitute of Education. Hong Kong.

Nunan, D. 1997. 'Strategy training in the languageclassroom: an empirical investigation'. RELC28/2: 56-83.

Oxford, R. L. (ed.). 1996. Language LearningStrategies Around the World: Cross-culturalPerspectives. (Technical Report 13). Honolulu:University of Hawaii. Second Language Teach-ing and Curriculum Centre.

Pica, T. 1987. 'Second-language acquisition, socialinteraction, and the classroom'. Applied Lin-guistics 8: 3-21.

Potter, J. 1992. Use of English Oral 1. Hong Kong:Witman.

Rost, M. and S. Ross. 1991. 'Learner use ofstrategies in interaction: typology and teach-ability'. Language Learning 4112: 235-73.

Rusciolelli, J. 1995. 'Student responses to readingstrategies instruction'. Foreign Language Annals28/2: 262-73.




Dow

nloaded from


Appendix 1 An extract of strategy training material for Lesson 2

Strategy: Checking if you have understood others correctly and seekingclarification from others

Training procedure

A. Presentation of useful phrases

You may use the following phrases to(1) check if you have understood others correctly, and/or(2) seek clarification from others.'Do you mean that . . .? ''So you're saying that . . . ''Let me see if I understand you. You think that . . . ''As I understand you, . . . ''Sorry, but I don't quite understand.''Sorry, but I'm not with you.''Sorry, could you say that again, please?''Sorry, would you mind saying that again, please?', etc.

B. Explicit training

Activity 1 [adapted from Use of English Oral 1 (Potter 1992, p. 68, Exercise 2)

1 Work in pairs.2 Individually work out a short presentation (of 3 minutes) on either an

interesting game, or an exciting team sport. You should choose a sportor game that you know very well, but your partner probably does notknow about.

3 In 5 minutes, make brief notes of what to present (e.g. How to win?Players? Equipment? Setting? Rules?).

4 Once you and your partner have prepared your notes, take turns toexplain the game or sport to each other.

5 While you are listening to your partner's explanation, you shouldinterrupt politely and ask questions to seek clarification of any points thatyou may not understand. You may use the phrases introduced above. Ifyou ask questions, your partner should restate/clarify.

6 While you are presenting your game/sport, your partner will also askyou similar questions to check understanding. You should also try toclarify his/her doubts.




Dow

nloaded from


C. Further Practice

Activity 2 Group discussion [adapted from Use of English Oral 1 (Potter 1992,pp. 73-̂ 4, Ex. 6]

Discussion topic: Choosing a new sports faculty (see Potter 1992, p. 73)

Steps

1 Form groups of three or four2 Take five to six minutes to study the suggested projects and their estimated

costs on p. 74, and prepare your own suggestions as to how to spend themoney. Add in details of your own school's current facilities, and any otherdetails you wish to add to the information given.

3 Your group should try to reach a decision about the best way to spend themoney, and then decide what action needs to be taken.

4 REMEMBER: During the discussion, you should ask the speaker to clarifyhis/her points as much as necessary.




Dow

nloaded from


Appendix 2 Topics used in the pre-training and post-training group discussion tasks

Pre-training discussion

You and your group are the design team of a Hong Kong toy manufacturer.You must make a proposal to your boss for a new best-selling toy.In your discussion, you should decide:

1 the type of toy which you think will sell the best (including the name ofthe toy; whether it is for girls, boys or both; whether it is connected witha popular film, TV programme, comic book, etc.);

2 the price of the toy (or price range, if you are thinking of a series of toys);3 the location where the toy will be manufactured (in Hong Kong or in

another country);4 an advertising slogan for the toy.

You should also be prepared to give your boss reasons why you think thistoy would be successful.

Post-training discussion

Your school has been given $100,000 by a rich businessman who onceattended the school. The only stipulation is that the money is to be spent tobuild or improve sports facilities at the school in order to allow the studentsto enjoy a broader range of sports.

You have to discuss how to spend the money, and to organize action toimplement the final decision.

The authorsWendy Lam is a Senior Lecturer in the Depart-ment of English at the Hong Kong Institute ofEducation (HKIEd). She has been involved inpre-service and in-service teacher education pro-grammes for nine years. She has a BA in EnglishLanguage and Literature and an MA in TEFL.Her major research interests are language learn-ing strategies, spoken language, and the assess-ment of oral competence.Email: [email protected]

Jennie Wong is a Lecturer in the Department ofEnglish at the Hong Kong Institute of Education.Before her involvement in teacher education, shetaught English as a foreign language for ten yearsin Hong Kong. She has a BA in Linguistics and anMEd in Language in Education. Her majorresearch interests are learning strategies, task-based teaching and learning, and classroomdiscourse.Email: [email protected]




Dow

nloaded from


The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills ...

Documents

Transcript of The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills ...