Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Emric Salven B.

Rejano MLL202

The Predictability and Unpredictability of ESL Speaking Through Chatterbox and


Classroom Interaction

I. INTRODUCTION

The case study will discuss the module for English as Second Language (ESL) speaking
classes entitled “Chatterbox”. Chatterbox is a class wherein each student is handled exclusively by
a teacher for two hours; the goal is to make the student speak about their thoughts on the topic as
much as they can. The class which makes use of this module is strictly for one on one classes. In
theory, having a 1:1 student-teacher ratio helps increase the confidence and open-mindedness of
the students for the whole duration of the English Camp. The Chatterbox classes helps students to
be familiar with vocabulary and free speech.

The simulation of conversation or discourse between teachers and students depends on the
module and the topic provided. However, in some cases the students and teachers are forced to
move away from the module to achieve the goal of the class. This may prove that the entirety of
the module itself is not as effective as it is expected to be. This maybe due to the predictability and
unpredictability of the conversation between students and teacher, or how teachers conduct the
simulation of interaction in the classroom.

Statement of the problem

1. How does the predictability and unpredictability change the course of the interaction
between students and teachers?
2. What are the factors which makes the module ineffective for the duration of the class?
a. How can the use of the module be maximized throughout the period of the
simulation of interaction between students and teachers in the classroom?

Statement of Objectives

1. Understand the predictability and unpredictability which change the course of


interaction between students and teachers.
2. Identifying the factors which makes the module ineffective for the duration of the class.
a. Understanding how the use of the module can be maximized throughout the
period of simulation of interaction between students and teachers in the
classroom.

Significance of the Study

The modules provided for Chatterbox are made only as a guide for the students and teachers;
which makes the book unnecessary for the whole interaction simulation. The less use of the module
is problematic because the primary use of it is only to give out the topic for the lecture and
vocabularies for the student to know. In a sense, the lecture should not require a printed module
for the student and the teacher to use. This paper will investigate and critique on how relevant the
module is to the interaction with the student and the teacher during speaking class, and how other
factors of the lecture might contribute to the reduced usage of the module.

Scope and Limitations

The case study will cover the factors involving predictability and unpredictability of
conversations within an interaction in the classroom; which in this case is the Chatterbox session,
and how all of these contribute to the on why the module is being used less to the point that most
of the time in the lecture it would not be used. However, it would not go beyond these
methodologies by David Nunan. The two things which are only relevant to this study is the lecture
or simulation of interaction between students and teachers, and the module itself.

II. FRAMEWORK

Conceptual Framework

The critique will be based on David Nunan’s Language Teaching Methodology. The
methodology which will be used in this case study is found in Chapter 3 of the book. The topics
which will be used are only Predictability and Unpredictability and Classroom Interaction.
Source of Data

An ESL Academy is using a module for Chatterbox classes, this will be the primary source
of the module. Moreover, observation and experiences are also covered for how the module is used
during sessions of the class.

Method

A methodological analysis will be used for the module and the procedure which the
teachers implement in the classroom. This would help find the answers to the problems involving
the use of the module and the procedure.

III. DISCUSSION

Simulating Oral Interaction through One on One Chatterbox Lectures

One on one classes are commonly utilized in ESL classes. The reason why it is essential
for the Chatterbox lectures to be one on one is to narrow down the teacher-centered learning which
is found in a group class. In an article by the British Council said that “The normal roles of a large
group often change in a one to one class, where intimacy of interaction can mean that you’ve
become much more of a friend to the learner – or an enemy” (British Council, 2007).

The decrease of the teacher-centered learning, it can transform to a student-centered


learning wherein the students can freely express their opinions while developing their speaking
skills in the English language. Moreover, interacting with an English speaker directly contributes
to the development of their acquisition. However, this does not mean that the class should
compromise the essential goal for this kind of speaking class.

In Language Teaching Methodology, David Nunan presented how a classroom interaction


with small groups are effective. Moreover, he also presented “a pattern of interaction in which the
learners are forced to make conversational adjustments promote acquisition” (Nunan 1991, 50):
Step 1: Show that (a) linguistic/conversational adjustments promote (b) comprehensible input.

Step 2: Show that (b) comprehensible input promotes (c) acquisition.

Step 3: Deduce that (a) linguistic/conversational adjustments promote acquisition. Satisfactory


evidence of the a  b  c relationships would allow the linguistic environment to be posited as an
indirect casual variable in SLA. (The relationship would be indirect because of the intervening
‘comprehension’ variable.) (Long 1985: 378).

These steps are expected to be executed in a Chatterbox class which is a one on one class.
To start the simulation of interaction, teachers are expected to give an overview and vocabulary to
the students before engaging them for the rest of the period (refer to figure 1). In theory, the student
are encourage and expected to use these words while they are practicing their speaking.

Figure 1: Vocabularies before the conversation starts

The module can accomplish step one of Long’s pattern, it would depend on the teacher
how to make the students use these words in their conversation. This starts the simulation of the
interaction between the student and the teacher. However, the vocabulary is not the foundation of
the session itself.

One important factor to consider here is the comprehensive skills of the student to create a
proper learning environment for the student. The teacher should be able to make the student
comfortable of what they say during the class to achieve step two and three. The module itself is
the key; since Chatterbox mainly focuses on the speaking improvement of the student, the module
creates a common ground which the students and teachers can settle on. For example, the topic of
the lecture is “Fad”. The module carefully gives the student and teacher guide questions which
does not end immediately. These questions provided are easily understandable by the students and
are easy to follow up by the teachers. Thus, the movement of the class should go on about the topic.
The Structure of the Module and Maximizing It

The module is a formatted in a simple structure which would seem to some that the topic
and the questions in the module are too short for the whole two-hour session. This leads to teachers
relying on activities provided by the module or outside of it to accommodate the time the students
are paying for to learn. However, most activities done before or after the session are mostly
unrelated to the topic since some of the activities provided in the module does not accommodate
groups or does not involve other students at all. This could mean that the module itself is not as
effective as it seems.

To understand the problem of not maximizing the module, one must look at its parts. There
are three parts of the module: Vocabulary, Questions regarding the topic, and the activities. With
the two-hour period given to the teachers to accomplish an activity, the module would seem too
short for them that they would often move on to the next topic. Though this practice is accepted in
tradition, it minimizes the use of the module and creates more dead time for the students to the
point that one or two sessions are open due to the early accomplishments of the entire chatterbox
module.

Figure 2: Chatterbox Module for the day (Chatterbox Challenge)


Figure two shows the module which must be accomplished for one session. The structure
of it is simple, and consistent to all chatterbox modules. It is easy to see why teachers accomplish
the module in less than a session. The problem which was raised about the module is the fast pace
in which the teacher goes through the questions without broadening the topic at hand. The goal of
the module is to expand the discussion or conversation about the topic for each question. The series
of questions in the book can be divided into parts depending on the topic. Which is why some
questions may not be related to the succeeding ones. The module is dependent on how the teacher
will broaden the topic. It does not mean that the teacher should expand one question because it
would only be repetitive.

Maintaining the interest of the student is the key to broaden the topic given by the module.
Teachers are given the freedom to interact in conversation with the students in anyway to
encourage them to speak. That is why conversations such as these are dependent to the
predictability and unpredictability of speaking and how teachers can facilitate and maximize the
module.

Predictability and Unpredictability of Speaking during the class

Taking advantage of what the module offers can extend and broaden the topics the teacher
discusses with the student. This helps in maximizing the module in the proper way. Triggering the
interest of the student is the key to achieve the objectives of the module. However, in the process
of broadening the topic, the teacher will encounter what David Nunan described as the
Predictability and Unpredictability of Speaking.

In every school day, the students are expected to come to a Chatterbox class to practice
their speaking abilities, and everyday chatterbox for the students will become a routine for them,
making the class become predictable for both students and teachers. In Nunan’s Language
Teaching Methodology, he describes that “…predictability will depend whether the discourse or
text type predictable patterns, and also to the extent to which we are familiar with these patterns”
(Nunan 1991, 42).
In the minds of the students, Chatterbox, with its consistent structure, becomes a
predictable text type to which they already know what to talk about, what to say, and what to do
in the class. It becomes a class wherein students lose their interest, or in the analogy of Nunan, “if
I know exactly what you are going to say, then there is no point in my listening to you” (Nunan
1991, 42). However, in most cases, students tend to look forward to their Chatterbox sessions
rather than their group classes; but there are cases which the students will not attend their sessions
anymore due to the predictability of the class leading to their lost of interest to it.

The influence of the predictability in Chatterbox is caused by the structure of the module
which the students could decide beforehand whether the topic interesting or not. Considering this
is the case of all students of the class, there is an excess of predictability which could mean that
the only task of the teachers is to bring unpredictability in class. Therefore, for this class, it is
necessary to rotate the students to different teachers for different topics.

The module itself is the balance to the effect of the unpredictability and would no longer
have the problem of a conversation not having to occur. Since the module gives the students the
idea of what to expect in the class, the teacher’s wit and style becomes the mystery to these students
which creates a “what does my teacher think about this?” effect. The module creates a pattern for
the students to know what to expect, but the unpredictability of the teacher boosts the interest of
the students to remain in class. This is the reason why one on one sessions are essential to
Chatterbox.

IV. CONCLUSION

The module is dependent to the facilitator because the students does not have anything to
review from it except perhaps the vocabulary. The dependency of the module is what makes it
effective for the students to be encouraged to come to these sessions and practice their English-
speaking skills. In my observation in two years, it is more to the predictability of the module and
the unpredictability of the teacher which makes Chatterbox successful; this class creates a bond
between students and teacher where it is not possible in any other classroom. This bond between
the people involve is what makes Chatterbox itself.
The module is dependent on the facilitator, not because it is poorly made, but because it
must be dependent to them. The class offers no technicality in language learning wherein students
can be given what they always want to do in class – not discuss about class. Instead student and
teachers get to know one another, and this builds a bond which captures the students’ interests.
Which is why extracurricular activities are formed within chatterbox periods.

The module is what simulates the class from the beginning. The people involve are forced
to speak to each other because the questions creates a common ground for the students and the
teachers. It achieves its goal because it is too predictable and interesting at the same time. It gets
people talking and consume time through conversations.

However, the topics in these modules are limiting, and dictated by popular culture. It is
promoting a certain lifestyle which makes people agree with it. It would seem rewarding to the
people involved to agree on this, and even that could create a common ground for those who
disagree.

V. RESOURCES

Nunan, David. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall,

1991.

No Author. Chatterbox Challenge. The Study by Enderun Colleges.

No Author. 2007. “Teaching One on One”. British Council. July.


https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teaching-one-one

Potrebbero piacerti anche