I confessed in the previous post that I don't personally care for role-playing and therefore don't tend to use them in my language teaching. It occurred to me that I might elaborate more on that, and my preferred alternative.
My aversion to role-play transcends language. I am uncomfortable doing improv, and I don't relate very naturally in forced perspective taking, even with children (so if a child hands me a figure and wants me to engage in conversation with it and other figures, I basically panic). It just feels so awkward. Other people excel at improv and are great at that kind of interaction. I'm not, and that's in my first language. Trying that activity in a second language is layering on additional stress. There are probably extroverted language learners out there who would shine in that circumstance, and/or instructors who could manage the activity deftly (more power to them), but as it's not in my nature and in case anyone in the room is as uncomfortable or anxious about role-playing as I would be in their place, I usually steer clear. Aside from the affective filter, the other reason I might balk at role-plays is that they often prompt developmentally inappropriate/unrealistic output. In one textbook I'm familiar with, within the first few pages of the first chapter (mind you, this is Introductory Spanish), students are asked to role-play registering for classes at the university registrar's office in a Spanish-speaking country. As novice language learners, even the student role of that dyad is intimidating enough, but asking a college student to take the perspective and language production of a university official seems ludicrous. Neither in their L2 knowledge nor their life experience do they have the background to play that part. One might argue, "But the textbook isn't expecting the students to have a completely native-like conversation, just practice asking and answering personal information," to which I would respond, "Sure, so why the role-play?" Why create a fake context to have students ask/answer personal questions, when there's a perfectly legitimate real context of the classroom in which people might be interested in their classmates? Additional hypothetical arguments include "But role-plays are more fun than just asking each other questions!" to which I will refer back to my original point about anxiety. Also, while I'm sure there are fun and silly combinations for role-playing, being imaginary does not necessarily make it more fun. Who would argue that pretending to be a registrar office secretary is especially exciting just because it's fake? Getting to know people for real can also be nice (awwww...) Finally, role-playing advocates may counter, "But students need to know how to _____. How will they know how to _____ if they do not practice _____ing in a role-play?" Examples of _____ (based on my perusal of textbooks) include: ordering food at a restaurant, buying clothing at a store, buying a plane/train ticket, reserving a hotel, etc. I think BVP would argue (I seem to recall hearing this argument on an episode of Tea with BVP?) that role-play doesn't really prepare students to do those things in the first place, since the contexts (here we go again) of those actions are unpredictable. Hence, the students should prepare for language use in general, not practice performing a particular function, and that students with plenty of communicative input and interaction will be able to navigate their way through those situations equally well. I'm inclined (again, perhaps selfishly) to agree. BUT if there is situation-specific vocabulary or form of address or common chunks of language that just don't occur naturally in the classroom (drumroll...) I have an alternative: dialogue. I am perfectly comfortable building dialogue into a narrative. We really need to be exposed to buying train tickets? Ok, let's weave a story where a person needs a train ticket. Why does s/he need a ticket? For a daily commute or a vacation? Did s/he get to the station in plenty of time or in a rush because the alarm didn't go off at the right time? Is there a problem with the ticket machine, is someone ahead in the line making a scene, have the tickets just sold out? That, to me anyway, is more interesting (and certainly involves more substantial and elaborate input) than breaking into pairs for two minutes to ask personal questions while imagining, but not really, that one is supposed to act like they sell tickets at a train station (or work at a Spanish university registrar's office). We can sit and park for a few minutes on the conversation between the characters even, if it needs more exposure. How do you [student] ask for a train ticket? Answers ranging from: "Can I have a ticket to XYZ please" to "One to XYZ" [real answer: in NJ at least, from the machine, to avoid human contact] But there's a problem, at least according to BVP: stories do not have a clear communicative purpose that is either psychosocial or cognitive-informational (p.71). So is my narrative alternative not "communication" any more than a role-play is? I... have thoughts about that. That I'll have to get to in a separate post.
0 Comments
I was graciously loaned a copy of Bill VanPatten's While we're on the topic: BVP on language, acquiition, and classroom practice, which describes and advocates for communicative language teaching. I read it straight through, but I'm working through it again to take down my thoughts, reflecting on it piece by piece. CLT Principle 1: Teaching communicatively implies a definition of communicationI agree with the desirability of having a definition of communication, though I'm not quite convinced of the necessity of all of the parts provided in the book: "Communication is the expression, interpretation, and sometimes negotiation of meaning with a purpose in a given context. What's more, communication is also purposeful" (p.3 and over and over throughout the book in slightly varying iterations) It seems to me that it could be shortened to "the purposeful exchange of meaning." Exchange, to me anyway, can cover all the same bases. It implies multiple interlocutors, one who provides (expression) and one who receives (interpretation) meaning. If the exchange isn't successful, then negotiation would be required, but that is still part of the exchange process.
I'm not yet convinced on the necessity of "context." It may be an important determiner of appropriate communication, but I'm not sure it needs to be in the definition itself. Does language cease to be communication in a different context? Maybe ceases to be appropriate. BVP mentions role-plays, and argues that they are not communicative, because they ignore the real context of the classroom. So it seems that, to him, language does cease to be communication if not in its actual context. As someone personally uncomfortable engaging in (and therefore instructing students to do) role-plays, I appreciate the idea that we don't have to force ourselves to pretend the language classroom is something (somewhere? grocery store, train station, admissions office, etc) it's not. So, perhaps self-servingly, I am inclined to agree. Put another way, is the language produced between the actors during a play "communication"? I specifically say "between the actors," because it may be communicating meaning to the audience, but that's not what I mean. For one, it's scripted, so if anything it's pretending to be communication, but isn't really. But a play would be more akin to students reading dialogues (I have no qualms saying that is not communication). How about improv? That also creates fake contexts. Are the improv actors communicating or not during a sketch? They're reacting to each other, so there must be an exchange of meaning. But the purpose is different, I suppose--to entertain an audience, while role-plays are often just between the students (and if the instructor is watching, it's not to derive entertainment but to evaluate). So if the purpose of the role-play is just to practice the language of a situation (and/or be evaluated by an instructor), that is not sufficient to be communication? BVP brings up self-talk (p.11), but doesn't come to any conclusions on whether it counts as communication. I'm talking to myself quite a bit as I write this. Am I or am I not communicating with myself? He says self-talk isn't language "practice," but what if I rehearse what I might say before making a phone call (which I may sometimes be known to do)? I'd love to say I've made up my mind one way or the other, but maybe I have to let it simmer a bit more... I haven't yet delved into my thoughts on "purpose." I agree that purpose is necessary, but I'm still working out how I feel about the definition. More on that in a separate post. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |