This is my assignment for my MA TESOL, module 1 for those colleagues and students who expressed an interest in the final version. Thanks to everyone who shared their time and opinions.
1.0 Introduction
Communication Strategy (CS) – a mutual attempt of two
interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning
structures do not seem to be shared. (Tarone 1980:419)
Communication
strategies have been defined differently over the past 40 years since their
first appearance in ELT literature. The
most widely quoted in the literature discussed here is Tarone (1980), whose
definition covers both inadequate linguistic and sociolinguistic structures. As
a result of these differing definitions, several taxonomies have been suggested
with a greater or lesser degree of detail (Dornyei and Scott 1997, Dornyei 1995),
although as Bialystok mentions, there is a great deal of overlap, and
taxonomies ‘differ primarily in terminology and overall categorizing’(Bialystok
cited in Dornyei 1995).
Besides disagreement
over what constitutes a communication strategy, views also differ over whether
communication strategies should or even can be taught. As Willems points out ‘… [strategies] cannot always be identified
unambiguously… because they may be unmarked’ (1987:352) and how can we
teach what we cannot identify? However, if we assume that strategic competence
is an integral component of communicative ability (Canale 1980), and that this
in turn is the goal of CLT, we cannot neglect its significance in our
classroom.
In this small study I
hope to discover which strategies are used and which are neglected by my
students. I expect to see a difference in the frequency and the type of
strategy used by children as opposed to adults. As they are both exam classes,
I hope there will be an awareness of strategies and their usefulness. I will
attempt to prove through my review of relevant literature that communication
strategies are both beneficial and teachable, despite all the disagreements
over taxonomies. I will come to a conclusion about the implications for my own
future teaching.
2.0 Literature
Review
In this section I
present current definitions of communication strategies, as well as their
classification and benefit for learners in the communicative classroom. I ask whether
students should be aware of the strategies they use and whether it is possible
to teach such strategies. Finally I highlight the significance of the Critical
Period Hypothesis for the learners in my study.
2.1 Communication
Strategies as part of the Communicative Approach
In the introduction,
I quoted Tarone’s (1980) definition of communication strategies. Let us now
compare it to Brown’s statement that we teach ‘for the ultimate goal of communication with other speakers of the
second language’ (Brown 1994:226). If it is true, as I believe, that we
value successful communication over, although not to the exclusion of, all
else, then we must facilitate communication by teaching not only linguistic
features, but also strategies to cope when linguistic resources are not
sufficient. As Willems states, ‘the exact
nature … of the communicative situations … is highly unpredictable’ (1987:351).
Strategic competence is one of the four sub-divisions of communicative
competence (Canale and Swain 1980) and as such is inextricable from the
communicative classroom.
2.2 Taxonomies and
Classifications
For a
speech act to be considered a communication strategy, Tarone suggests the
following criteria:
(1) a speaker desires to
communicate meaning x to a listener;
(2) the speaker believes the
linguistic or sociolinguistic structure desired to communicate
meaning x is unavailable, or
is not shared with the listener; thus
(3) the speaker chooses to
(a) avoid-not attempt to
communicate meaning x-or
(b) attempt alternate means
to communicate meaning x. The speaker stops
trying alternatives when it
seems clear to the speaker that there is shared
meaning. (Tarone 1981:288)
Such strategies should not
be confused with production strategies, because, as seen in the above
definition, an interlocutor is essential. Many modern exams of oral proficiency
involve a dialogue between a pair of candidates, eg. Cambridge Main Suite, and
since communication strategies are always interactional, there is a great value
in encouraging exam candidates to be aware of them and to put them into
practice.
Broadly speaking,
communication strategies can be divided into achievement strategies and avoidance
or reduction strategies, common
examples of which agreed upon by most researchers are the following (for
detailed definitions see Appendix I):
Achievement
Strategies
·
Paraphrase
·
Language-switch
·
Appeal for help
Reduction Strategies
·
Topic Avoidance
·
Message Abandonment
According to Brown, ‘Strategies vary intraindividually; each of us has a whole host of
possible ways to solve a particular problem and we choose one – or several of
those in sequence – for a given problem’ (1997:104). However, it can be
agreed that an over-reliance on reduction strategies is ultimately a bad habit,
whereas it is generally accepted that students who are prepared to take risks
with their learning and communicate even without being sure of the accuracy of
their speech are more likely to succeed. Willems (1987) emphasises that
teachers should be aware of the existence of reduction strategies, even if they
are not immediately identifiable.
2.3
Benefits
Dornyei and Scott
(1997:183) suggest that the need for communication strategies comes from the
following three issues:
·
Learners have insufficient language resources to express
their message
·
Learners have insufficient resources to cope with the
interlocutor’s language
·
L2 speakers require longer processing time.
However, opinions differ. According to Lightbown and
Spada (2006:31), ‘some researchers have
suggested that the use of these cognitive skills – so valuable for so many
kinds of tasks – can actually interfere with language acquisition”. Tarone
(1980) agrees when she says that learning may not always happen as a result of
the use of communication strategies. Yet the following points demonstrate that
there is much evidence to support the use and the teaching of communication
strategies:
i.
“Learners seem to think that there must be a “correct” way
of saying what they have in mind. If they do not have this correct formulation
at their disposal they prefer saying nothing.” (Willems 1987:354) Most teachers will have experienced
this while teaching adult classes. As Lightbown and Spada put it, “Children are willing to make an attempt with language
even if they are not correct, while adults will hesitate and try to be
grammatically accurate before they venture a comment” (1996:31). Therefore
according to Cook (1997) cited in Manchon (1999:15), a feature of L2 learning
is the inability to complete tasks fully, which leads us to the next point.
ii.
Since teachers are attempting to encourage the best
possible achievement of tasks, the use of communication strategies motivates
weaker students as they can complete a greater portion of tasks even without
full grammatical or lexical resources. (Willems 1987)
iii.
Willems (1987:354) also mentions research which shows
that ‘street-learners’ employ communication strategies more effectively than
‘classroom-learners’. Since classroom learning does not naturally provide full
practice in these strategies, teachers must consciously include strategy
training to compensate for this lack.
iv.
Adults may possess transferable knowledge about
communication strategies in their L1, but young learners are still developing
this awareness and therefore can benefit from explicit teaching (Willems 1987).
v.
Knowledge of strategies leads to autonomy, and autonomy
is ‘one of the most important goals of
language training’ (Brown 1996:124). Dickenson (1992, 1993) cited in
Manchon (1999) states that three out of five features of autonomous learners
are connected to strategy use.
Based on these reasons we conclude that it is beneficial to use appropriate
communication strategies, but how should they be taught?
2.4 Student Awareness
and Teachability
In contrast to the
wealth of research on the taxonomies of communication strategies, little has
been said about how to actually teach
them (Manchon 1999). Tarone (1981) alternately defines them as ‘a systematic attempt’ or ‘a conscious attempt’ to compensate for
linguistic difficulties. Faerch and Kasper quoted in Yule and Tarone (1991)
suggested that these strategies are potentially
conscious, which seems a more likely definition.
However, if learners
are conscious of their attempts, then it must be possible to specify these
strategies and then teach them. Some researchers claim it is frequency of input, not awareness of it, which induces learning
(Lightbown and Spada 1996:45), yet others emphasise the necessity of raising
students’ awareness of strategies to foster acquisition.
‘Richard Schmidt (1990, 2001) proposed the ‘noticing hypothesis’ suggesting
that nothing is learned until it has been noticed. Noticing in itself does not
result in acquisition, but it is the essential starting point.’ (Lightbown
and Spada 1996:44)
As Dornyei (1995) points
out, communication strategies are also employed in L1, but the range will
necessarily be different and so we cannot expect logical transfer of strategies
to the L2, although others disagree (Canale and Swain 1980). It is an important
point that some strategies may be more easily taught than others. Dornyei
(1995:62) mentions that there has been research into specific strategies, but
research into all strategies has by no means been thorough or complete. Of
course it goes without saying that certain strategies such as message
abandonment or topic avoidance are undesirable and should not be taught.
In Chapter 6 of
Lightbown and Spada (1996) it is suggested that certain linguistic elements can
be taught at any moment in a learner’s development, eg. lexical items, while
others can only follow on after a particular sequence. The use of most
communication strategies is possible from the early stages of learning, and
indeed arguably is most necessary then as linguistic resources are at their
most limited. Dornyei (1995:63) offers a useful list of six methods by way of
which we can teach strategies. (See Discussion section for details)
2.5 Critical Period
Hypothesis
The critical period
hypothesis states that there is a predetermined period of life when it is
easier to learn a language (Brown 1996:52), usually assumed to be around
puberty. In this study I have chosen to investigate two groups which vary
greatly in age and which therefore presents the question whether younger
children use fewer strategies than adults as they are potentially better
language learners. ‘Older learners draw
on their problem solving and metalinguistic abilities precisely because they
can no longer access the innate language acquisition ability they had as young
children’ (Lightbown and Spada 1996:31).
3.0
Method
This section presents the participants, their tasks and
the collection of results.
3.1 Participants
The participants in this study are two groups of learners
who study twice a week long-term in a private language centre. Group 1 are 9-11
year-olds studying for the Cambridge ESOL Flyers exam, while Group 2 are adults
preparing for Cambridge Advanced. Despite the differences in age, maturity and
other factors, both groups are preparing for a Cambridge exam and therefore
need appropriate communication strategies to ensure that they complete the
spoken tasks. They were recorded within their regular lesson. Students were
recorded working in pairs to allow for the use of L1 if desired.
3.2 Task 1
Students were asked to tell a story based on a series of
six pictures (Appendix II). For both groups the task could be achieved with,
but not restricted to, familiar vocabulary. In order to eliminate possible
personal influence or bias because of knowing the students well, I chose not to
create my own tasks for these students, but instead to use pre-prepared tasks
which had already been used for a somewhat similar study by Tarone and
Swierzbin (2009, pp. 163-164).
3.3 Task 2
Students were asked
to compare two photographs (Appendix III) in a minimum of ten ways and to
speculate about who might live in the houses illustrated. As with task 1, the
materials come from Tarone and Swierzbin, 2009. This involved a considerable
number of unknown elements such as parts of a house, eg. for the children:
roof, steps; for the adults: porch, shutters, blinds. Students were given a
minimum time limit (3 mins.) to ensure that there would be sufficient data, but
no upper limit, to allow maximum collection of data.
3.4 Task 3
The adult group were given
questionnaires (Appendix VII) and asked to mark which communication strategies
they believe they use often, sometimes or
never. The aim was to correlate
students’ beliefs with the results of the study in order to assess their
awareness of their strategy use.
The children were not
asked to complete this questionnaire for the following reasons:
·
The time needed to explain the task would have been
detrimental to their study programme.
·
The task was judged to be too cognitively difficult for
this age group.
·
Students would give answers which they consider would
please the teacher rather than tell the truth.
3.5 Data collection
Students were
voice-recorded and the results for tasks 1 and 2 were recorded in a tally table
(Appendix IV) which shows the frequency of each communication strategy among
the children, the adults and the two groups combined.
The results of the
questionnaires were compared with the findings of the recording and recorded in
graphs (Appendix VIII).
The taxonomy chosen
(Appendix I) comes from Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) summative table of various
taxonomies. I preferred this taxonomy for its detail and pedagogical interest,
but I chose to use a simpler and clearer taxonomy (Dornyei 1995) on which to
base the student perception questionnaires, which will allow both the teacher
(myself) and the students to discuss and learn from the results.
4.0 Results
Using Dornyei’s (1995)
taxonomy to classify strategies as either achievement strategies or reduction
strategies, we see that the overwhelming majority of strategies used by the
students fall into the category of achievement. In fact, of the 64 instances of
a communication strategy being used, 55 were achievement strategies and 9
reduction. This is, however, to be expected, given that there are only 2
reduction strategies in the taxonomy.
The adult group chose
message abandonment, paraphrasing and code-switching to cope with their
communication problems. There was also considerable use of approximation,
restructuring, self-repair, verbal strategy markers and direct appeals for
help.
The commonest
strategies used by the group of children were message abandonment and
code-switching. Paraphrasing and restructuring were also among the most
frequently used.
Many strategies in
the taxonomy were not used by either group, and so are not displayed in the
graph of results. Such strategies include response and some form of
clarification, mumbling, omission and own accuracy checking.
In the course of two
tasks over approximately 20 minutes there were 44 instances of communication
strategies being used among the adult group, while the children used a strategy
22 times. As there were thirteen adults in this study, on average each adult
used a strategy 3.38 times, and the 5 children observed had an average of 4.4.
Of course, these averages do not give an accurate picture of each student’s
ability, as some students used a wide variety of techniques to cope with their
lacking language skills while others used none at all.
It is interesting to
note that those young learners deemed in the teacher’s (myself) subjective
opinion to be weaker students used many more strategies than their more capable
counterparts, while in the adult group the reverse was true. The weakest adult,
who often struggles to express himself, did not show any examples of
communication strategies during the test period.
Since the students
were voice-recorded rather than on video, it is impossible to tell whether
there was use of mime as a strategy, however no extended pauses where gestures
could be filling the gap, so we can assume that use of mime is minimal. If is
used at all, it is not effective, as the interlocutor at no point guesses the
speaker’s message.
If we compare what
students believe their use of strategies to be and the results of the study, we
see that the students are by no means aware of their performance. Student’s A and
B (Appendix VIII) were the most realistic in the appraisal of their strategies,
while most students have probably marked strategies as ‘often’ because they
know or feel that they are important, rather than because they actually are
aware of their use.
5.0 Discussion
4.1 Achievement
vs. Reduction Strategies
Willems (1987:354)
states that reduction strategies are ‘a
major obstacle to language development’, so it is pleasing to note the
decided preference among the students for achievement strategies. However, it
is alarming that students choose to break off their message so frequently,
rather than attempt another means of communication. Message abandonment was
commonest among the children, which points logically to the fact discussed in
the Review,
that they are still developing these strategies in the L1, as well as to the
need to expand and encourage their use of achievement strategies instead.
It is interesting to
note that the adult group employed strategies such as use of fillers,
retrieval, self-repair, verbal strategy markers and direct appeals for help,
all of which require quite conscious effort, showing that they are aware of the
potential failure to communicate accurately
and desire to solve this problem immediately. The children’s complete lack of
repair strategies may point to their dismissal of accuracy as important to
communication as long as communication takes place. This age group can still be
somewhat described as ‘selfish’ learners; that is, they prefer speaking to
listening to others. This is illustrated in their rejection of strategies such
as appeals for help, comprehension checking etc. to concentrate on their own
choice of words.
4.2
Strategies and their Benefits
The
following strategies were used by one or both groups of students. Willems
(1987:156) states that the hierarchy of which to teach most is clear.
Nonetheless, here I elaborate on chosen strategies and why they would be
beneficial to my learners.
·
Message Abandonment – undesirable reduction strategy
leading only to a failure to communicate.
·
Message Replacement – undesirable reduction strategy
leading to a potentially incorrect or incomplete message.
·
Paraphrase – as it is impossible to know every word in a
language, this strategy is invaluable, and can be fostered with activities such
as Taboo.
·
Approximation and All-purpose words – will not
demonstrate a very high level of lexis, but can be used as a stop-gap solution
when paraphrase seems unnecessarily long-winded.
·
Word-coinage – accuracy fails but knowledge of certain
grammatical and linguistic features of the L2 is demonstrated.
·
Restructuring – although less desirable than paraphrase,
this strategy at least avoids outright grammatical error which would be marked
down in an exam.
·
Literal translation, Foreignising and Code-switching –
undesirable and only possible if the L1 and L2 share many common characteristics.
·
Use of similar-sounding words – a strategy used even by
L1 speakers but which only aids communication flow and may not aid clarity.
·
Retrieval and Self-repair – if a candidate is aware of
his mistakes, it is recommended to repair them instantly where possible.
·
Use of fillers and Verbal strategy markers – useful
strategies for exam situations in which the candidate is obliged to speak and
yet needs time to formulate his ideas.
·
Direct or indirect appeal for help – given that an
interlocutor is always present and that communication is by nature an
interactive activity, students should not be afraid to use whichever resources
are available to them to provide assistance.
·
Asking for confirmation, Expressing non-understanding,
Comprehension check and Response: repair – a lack of understanding is not
always the speaker’s fault, so it is important to state when communication has
failed and try to repair it before the misunderstanding becomes a problem.
At the same time it is important to remember Willem’s
(1987:152) warning that communication strategies must not be used at the cost of
accuracy.
4.3
Awareness
As we have seen, if a
student is conscious of a strategy, he can choose to employ it, therefore
awareness-raising is a desirable classroom aim. Dornyei and Scott (1997) mention
that consciousness might many different aspects of the same idea, but in this
study we are concerned only with students’ awareness of their chosen strategy.
Dornyei and Scott refer to Gass and Selinker (1994), who pointed out that
frequent use of particular strategies leads to automisation and students may
therefore fail to even realise which strategy they are employing, so it is to
some extent expected that there will be differences between students’
perception of the strategies they use and the reality.
Strategic competence
is tested in Cambridge exams. Students preparing for Flyers are required to
answer questions using whatever language they have at their disposal. Although,
of course, accuracy is tested, if a student is unable to find the correct word,
he will at least be given some credit for communicating however he can, as long
as he can convey his message. At CAE, students must keep dialogues going for
set time periods. This may require strategies such as the use of fillers to
‘buy’ time as they search for the best collocation or paraphrase when they are
unsure of the exact word necessary. They are also explicitly tested on
interaction skills, which might require comprehension checking or asking for
confirmation, not to mention asking for repetition or even feigning understanding
if their fellow candidate is perhaps not expressing himself clearly.
Adult learners on an
exam preparation course will certainly be aware of problems in communication,
as they are trained to complete very specific tasks with a clear end goal. They
are aware of the need for a strategy to overcome this problem, and they are
also aware of certain undesirable strategies, such as translation. It would be
interesting to investigate how many strategies they are aware exist.
Young learners are
much less likely to be conscious of the strategies they use, or even of the
range of possibilities, but if strategy training is to be encouraged among
adults, there seems no reason not to apply the same policy to younger groups.
4.4 Implications for
the Future
According to Hedge
(2000:53) ‘Second language acquisition
research suggests that the exposure of learners to language provided at a point
of need and in a meaningful context which they have created for themselves in
trying to express something is a good situation for acquisition’. This
statement can just as well be applied to the teaching and learning of
strategies as to grammar and vocabulary and justifies a more consistent
approach. Although Canale and Swain (1980:27) may not agree on the teachability
of communication strategies, they do say that strategic competence is as
important as grammatical competence. Nakatani (2005:77) agrees when he
interprets Bachman and Palmer (1996) as saying that foreign language learning
requires knowledge of metacognitive strategies.
A very useful list of
classroom procedures for teachers to follow in the teaching of communication
strategies is given by Dornyei (1995:63):
·
Raising awareness
·
Encouraging risk-taking
·
Providing models
·
Highlighting cross-cultural features
·
Teaching strategies directly
·
Providing practice in strategy use
Hedge points out that
learners are most likely to use communication strategies in situations which ‘push them to the limit of their language
resources’ (2000:266). This is a helpful indicator for the teacher of
whether the chosen activity is really encouraging learning or simply providing
familiar practice.
Johnson (1995:166)
states that ‘extending classroom
communicative competence means enabling second language students to develop a
broader repertoire of linguistic and interactional competencies so that they
can successfully participate in a wider range of classroom events.’ This
means that in order for the students in the study to succeed in their current
goal of passing Cambridge ESOL examinations they must be given explicit and
regular practice in noticing and employing interactional achievement strategies,
regardless of their age or level.
5.0 Conclusion
The aim of this study
was to judge the type and benefit of communication strategies among my
students. I have learnt that my children choose to abandon their message almost
a quarter of the time, which dictates that future teaching must involve
explicit practice of more desirable achievement strategies. I have seen that
adult learners are aware of many types of strategy, but are not always sure of
their own performance, and therefore they will benefit from their attention
being drawn to strategy use in communicative activities.
This study shows the
potential of further research into this area. It would be interesting to record
a sequence of at least eight lessons covering a much wider range of task types.
This would create opportunities for a greater variety of strategies. I will
show my results to my adult students, which should lead to interesting
discussions, hopefully encouraging them to reject reduction strategies for more
beneficial achievement strategies.
