The Implications of Inter-language Analysis in the Development of Materials for Teaching Speaking

8/9/2019 The Implications of Inter-language Analysis in the Development of Materials for Teaching Speaking

1/26

The Implications of Inter-language Analysis in the Development of

Materials for Teaching Speaking

BYAbdulmalik Y. Ofemile & Choonmi Kim

MA (TESOL& ICT) MA (TESOL)School of Education,

University Of Leeds, UK

Presented at the 8thMaterials Development/MATSDA

Postgraduate Research Conference 2010

Building Bridges: Research, Materials,

Classroom Practice and Beyond

Saturday 15thMay, 2010 09:30am

16:30pmLeeds Metropolitan University

Leslie Silver International Faculty

Caedmon Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds


2/26

Introduction

This paper is looking at a triangulation and application of three knowledgeareas in the process of materials development for teaching and learningspeaking skills in a second language acquisition context.

The knowledge areas include, Inter Language Analysis (ILA), Speaking skills,and Language materials design. The concepts of Needs Analysis (NA) and

content development will be subsumed under these broad areas as theimplications of triangulation become manifest.

We will focus on our contexts, summary of our research work, brief discussionof basic concepts from literature, the implications for materials developmentand our concluding thoughts on the work done.


3/26

5/16/2012 Abdulmalik Ofemile & Choonmi Kim 3

Our Contexts

Expanding Circle

Outer circle

Inner circle

UK, USACanada

India, NigeriaSingapore

South Korea, ChinaRussia

TheThree Circles(Kachru, 1985) Fig. 1

Adapted fromCrystal, (2010 :107)


4/26


Our contexts

Outer Circle (Nigeria)

English is the language of government,politics, business, education,communication and national unity.

Nigerian varieties: Pidgin & Educated

Nigerian English, Popular NigerianEnglish (Ofemile, 2010 citing Odumuh,1987; Jowitt, 1991)

Failure in the secondary schoolcertificate examination in English isrising.(Wedell, 2010 citing Bomgbose,

2001) The result for 2010 shows thatless than 2% of candidatespassed(Ofemile, 2010)

Expanding Circle (S. Korea)

The 6th National curriculum (Mar.1995 toFeb.2002) made English a compulsorysubject for students from the third grade ofprimary school until graduating from highschool (Kim, 2010)

English language is a requirement foradmission into the best Universities and forgetting the best jobs.

Learners do not get to use the languageadequately outside the classroom.

$15.3 billion expended on private lessons in2005 (Guardian Weekly cited in Wedell,2010)


5/26

Vernacular style Careful style

(more pidgin-like) Style 2 Style 3 Style 4 Style n (more TL/NL like)

Literature Review Inter-language

Unattendedspeech data

Attendedspeechdata

Various elicitation tasks: elicitedimitation,sentence-combining,etc

Grammaticalintuition data

Inter Language continuum.(Tarone 1983:152) Fig.2


6/26


Literature Review.

Selinker (1972 cited in Davies,1989) InterLanguage (Henceforth IL) is a learnerslanguage characterized by permeability,dynamism, and systematicity. Thus, IL iscontinually evolving with more input to thelearner and revision by the learner(Lightbown &Spada, 2006)

IL describes the structured system constructedby the learner at every stage of his

development. (Ellis, 1985)

'Sensitive Period Hypothesis'

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ispossible at any age but, it is impossibleto achieve native-like competence.(Patwoski, 2006 citing Lennenberg,1967) Thus, IL is a continuum thatrepresents the learner's development.

(Fig. 2) above.

As second language speaker sandteachers of English experience showsthat Patwoski is right but, we must addthat this however depends on severalfactors like context, the relationship

between L1 and the target language,and the learners attitude andbackground.


7/26


Literature Review.

Needs Analysis Has been variously defined and described

(Munby, 1977; Richterich & Chancerel, 1977/1980;Widdowson, 1984; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987;Queeney, 1995; Jordan, 1997; Benech, 2001,Ofemile, 2009).

From the above we deduced that NA has thefollowing properties.

It is a learner-centered process

It involves data collection and processing

It provides information on the design,implementation and evaluation of learningexperiences.

The learning experiences meet the needs of thelearners, Institutions, and Society.

Needs classified for ease ofidentification.

McDonough, (1984)Hutchinson and Waters,(1987); Mushare, (1992) and Benesch,(2001).

For our purpose,'Target needs (what a learnerwill do in order to learn). Learning needs(what the learner will do in a target situation)Hutchinson and Waters, (1987) will sufficebecause they help give focus to the paper.


8/26


Literature Review. Speaking skill in context

Speaking overlaps with many areas oflanguage. It can be seen as an aspectof production or from the social aspectsie attitudes towards productive skills.(Hughes, 2002)

our understanding of Hughes goes thus:

As an aspect of production, spokendiscourse is context dependent, usuallyunplanned, transient, uses oral/auralmedia and is dynamic.

From the social aspect, spoken

discourse is perceived as an inter-personal locus of change, that isinformal, rhetorical, stigmatized and aprimary form of language.

We believe that these are the qualities andfunctions of spoken discourse. Just asin writing, learners learn to speak andspeak to learn and we believe thatthere is a parallel here with'competence and performance'.

The first refers to skill acquisition while thesecond refers to the ability to use theskill in the 'target situation'. Acombination of the two provide whatHarmer, (2007) calls 'rehearsalopportunities' to use the language for apurpose and as a skill.


9/26


Literature Review.

Materials Design

It is a process that begins withidentification of competences or needsassessment, then determining goalsand objectives, conceptualizingcontent, and finally, selecting anddeveloping materials andactivities.(Graves, 1996)

This view sees material development asan integral part of course development.

Tomlinson(2005)citing Jolly and Bolitho(1998:97-8) presents a framework thatfocuses on procedures for developingmaterials thus:

Identification of need for materials

Exploration of need

Contextual realization of materials

Pedagogical realization of materials

Production of materials

Student use of materialsEvaluation of materials against agreed

objectives


10/26


Literature Review.

We find this framework most useful because it is systematic, coherent purposeful andflexible. This review has given a mulch-dimensional insights to this paper.

We will now go further to give a comparative analysis of our researches in IL.


11/26


Research Analysis

The Learners' Background

Korean(Lee) an Engineer and aNigerian (Nkiru) a teacher. We areusing Pseudonyms

Lee speaks Korean and English. He

learned English in Korea and Canada,rarely uses English at work but hiscomposition skills are good.

Nkiru speaks Igbo,a smattering ofYoruba, pidgin English, PopularNigerian English, and Standard British

English. She is a post-graduate studentin the UK.

The Research Tasks

The subjects were expected to:

Talk about themselves

Narrate or re-tell a story

Relate an experience that is ofsignificance to them.


12/26


Research Analysis

Aims

Ascertain their linguisticcompetences in the use ofEnglish language in

interaction.

Ascertain their Listening andspeaking skills.

Identify areas of deficiencies

Data Collection

We used unstructuredinterviews recorded

using Skype over threeinterview sessions.


13/26


Research Analysis (Research Methodology)

Data Analysis

Recorded interviewswere converted intotranscripts using voicewalker.

We analyzed data obtained usingCanale's (1983) framework ofcommunicative competence.

Results were classified under:

Phonology

Grammar

Vocabulary

pragmatics
http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/tools.html


14/26


Findings

Phonology

Nkiru's pronunciation wasgood with an intermediatelevel of fluency.

However, she commits localerrors attributable totransfers from L1 e.g.Omission of sounds like /t/ in'least'.

Lee also has goodpronunciation but, hedisplays a mixed grill ofabilities.

In one instance, he correctlyarticulates and distinguishesbetween the sounds /r/ and/l/ in words like 'generally'.However, when these

sounds occur in individualwords, he switches them asin 'actualy' articulated as /ri:/.Other sounds include /v/ as/b/ and /z/ as /dz/. These

sounds do not exist inKorean.


15/26


Findings

GrammarNkiru's mastery of sentence formation is

very good. She was able to placemorphemes in their proper positions tomake sentences.

Lee on the other hand, displayed agood level of competence in the use ofpresent tense but, his use of past tenseand articles (a, the) were inaccuratewhile copula and regular 'be' formswere ommited. Examples include 'Ah,

he style very strong'; 'I think heincrease economy better now'

VocabularyNkiru code mixes registers (e.g. 'eba'

'fufu') with English language. She usesinterjections and discourse particleslike 'aho' (what do I care or how do I

know) from Nigerian languages in herexpressions. Her choice of words arevaried and her repertoire of words veryhigh.

Lee shows a limited choice of words whichmaybe an indication of the level of his

development in the language.


16/26


Findings

PragmaticsNkiru displayed an appreciable level of

proficiency in pragmatic skills. She wasable to employ formulaic expressionswithout depending on them, interpret

requests, recognize and respond toconversation starters,employ co-constructions to complete clauses aswell as use a mixture and shift in tense'complicating action'.(Ofemile, 2009,2010)

Lee used and relied on formulaicexpressions like 'I studied...' but, hisdiscourse skills are good which can beattributed to a positive transfer fromKorean.

He is able to express his feelings aboutissues albeit in a confusing manner.

For example, he calls a 'puppy' 'baby dog'.This is a transfer from a Korean nearequivalent expression 'kae saeki'. Thisis an attempt (Harmer,2007)that has

pragmatic implications. The expressionis considered a solecism in Koreanculture and it is to an extentnonsensical in English.


17/26


Implications

We believe that ILA has implications formaterial development in the followingareas:

Needs analysis

Types of materials ie classification

Usability

Contextual focus

Needs Analysis.ILA employs approaches that are

systematic and empirically establishedby a careful accumulation and analysisof data e.g. Canale's framework. These

approaches are universally acceptable,they account for variations across ILsub-systems (phonology, grammar,vocabulary & pragmatics), and they areinternally consistent, parsimonious andelegant, (Tarone, 1989).

NA tries to get information about thelearners' perceptions of their needsand how others perceive them


18/26


Implications

Needs AnalysisIn view of the scientific and pragmatic nature of IL, we believe that it may be used to

strengthen the process of identification and elaboration of needs in materialsdevelopment. Errors or language variations identified will now become the learners'needs. For example, our studies observed that the subjects need more pragmatic

knowledge of English language to function and communicate effectively, thus,content design will include politeness, turn taking in conversation, or even elementsof interaction in English language discourse.

Apart from that IL can be used as a lead on to other aspects of NA in materialsdevelopment using the steps recommended below, (Fig 3).


19/26


IL strengthens data gathering processes in Needs Analysis

Set Speech Context

Set Interaction Objectives

Frame specific Questions

Administration (Interviews)

Analysis

Needs Identification & Evaluation

STEP 1.....

STEP 2.....

STEP 3.......

STEP 4.......

STEP 5......

STEP 6......

Fig 3


20/26


IL strengthens data gathering processes in Needs Analysis

Step 1: Determined by thecommunicative function of the languagebearing in various contexts (Tarone, 1988)

Step 2:the purpose of the studyshould be set in a favourable linguistic

environment.e.g. assessing the extent oflinguistic competence in spoken English.(Ofemile, 2010, Kim 2010; Schumann,1978b, Ellis, 1984a)

Step 3:Frame interview questionsbearing in mind socio-situational factors like

Tarone's (1988) social and pedagogicalnorms that may or may not conflict with thelearner's background. (See Ellis, 1992citing Lardiere, 2007)

Step 4:spontaneous recordings ofspeech by researcher, unstructuredinterviews, pre-planned sociolinguisticinteractions to check 'observer paradox'(Labov, 1972 cited in Tarone, 1988;Ellis,2009)

Step 5:Focused analysis of transcribedspoken data using accepted theoreticalstandards e.g. Canale's four aspects ofcommunicative competence.

Step 6: NA strategies are used inassessing linguistic competences orincompetence identified. Such strategies willinclude comparing the learner's linguisticperformance with the accepted expectedstandard. A variance analysis will yieldfurther the learner's needs at the evaluationstage.


21/26


Implications

Types of materials

Input from ILA will help in raising teachers'and learners' awareness about ESLsettings, methods and materialsdevelopment. This will help in theinclusion of contextualized learning

activities, strategies and exercises inclassroom speaking materials andresources that can promote interactionin the target language. (Ofemile,2010;citing Jianda, 2008; Ellis, !987; Kim,2010).

This implies that ILA input can aid thedecision about the type and function ofspeaking material to be developed e.gpaper based or electronic; classwork,examination, or which specific learnerneed to meet.

Usability

We are of the opinion that ILA input canhelp in evaluating these materials in anempirical manner. This idea becomesrelevant here since materials nowinclude electronic resources like

podcast, voice recorders, voice chats,video chats, CD/DVD, mp3, mp4 andother web based resources. ILA isused to identify learner needs andthese materials and resources will beemployed to give tasks that will remedydeficiencies.

Thus, materials will be assessed for'learnability, Efficiency, Memorability,Errors and satisfaction'(Nielson,1993:26)


22/26


Implications

This evaluation will simply ascertainwhether or not the speaking material iseasy to learn, efficient to use, easy toremember, allows the learner tocommit only a few errors, and ispleasant to use.(Nielson, 1993).

From experience, we find that thesefactors to a large extent determine thelevel of interaction that can begenerated in the classroom. Thus, apositive result implies high interactionbetween the learner and the materialand a negative indicates poor

interaction with no learning takingplace.

Contextual focus

Finally, we believe that the role of ILA inthe future development of Englishlanguage as an international languagewill become more pronounced. Thisbelief is based upon the striking

similarities that occurred in the resultsof our independent researches oflearners that represent the outer circleand expanding circle.

Secondly, Graddol's (2010) futuristicaxioms about India, which we find in

view of the results above to beincreasingly relevant to our researchcontexts


23/26


Implications

These are summarized thus;

There is a major shift towards English

There are three main drivers forEnglish

English has escaped from the library

Sustained economic growth requiresmore English speakers

National Improvement in English is tooslow

English is a casualty of wider problemsin Indian(Nigerian, Korean) education

There is a huge shortage of Englishteachers, and

8.Surveys of English proficiency levels areneeded. (Graddol 2010,14-15).

Material developers will continually

have to bear in mind this ever wideningcontexts and ILA has the potential of

presenting critical data for thosedesigners who desire to promotemutually intelligible materials forteaching and learning speaking or oralcommunication in English languageinternationally.


24/26


Conclusion

This paper has looked at the influence of ILA onmaterials development based on studies carriedout in two contexts. We must quickly add that, weinterviewed only one subject each and in three

events and to these extents can the results begeneralized. However, we think that more ofthese studies are needed in other contexts withother specifications to build a body of knowledge

in preparation for a future which is very near.


25/26


References/Bibliography

BENESCH, S (2001) Critical English for Academic purposes:Theory, politics, and practice. Mawah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

CRYSTAL, D (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of EnglishLanguage. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress p 107.

ELLIS (1994) Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition(basedon Bley-Vroman 1988)

ELLIS , R (1997) SLA Research and Language Teaching. London:Oxford University Press. Chps 5&6.

ELLIS , R (2009) The study of second language acquisition.Second Edition. London: Oxford University Press. Chps 5&6.

ELLIS, R (1987) Contextual variability in Second LanguageAcquisition and the relevancy of language teaching In R,Ellis (Ed) Second Language Acquisition in context. London:Prentice Hall International. Pp 179-195.

GRADDOL, D (2010) English Next India: The future of English inIndia. India: British Council. Pp14-15

GRAVES, K (1996) A framework of course developmentprocesses In K. Graves (Ed). Teachers as courseDevelopers. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

HARMER, J (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching.Fourth Edition. London. Pearson Longman.

HUGHES, R (2002) Teaching and Researching Speaking. London:

Longman. pp 5-25

HUTCHINSON, T & A.T. Waters (1987) English For Specific

Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

JOWITT, D (1991) Nigerian English Usage. An Introduction. Ikeja:

Longman (Nig) Limited. Part1

KIM, C (2010)' Second assignment: Investigating Language for

EDUC 5902 Submitted to School of Education,

University of Leeds. (Unpublished)

MCDONOUGH, J (1984) ESP in Perspective: A practical guide.

London: Collins ELT

MUNBY, J (1976). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

NIELSON, J (1993) Usability Engineering New York: Academic

press. P26.

OFEMILE, A.C (2009) First assignment: Investigating Language

for EDUC 5902 Submitted to School of Education,


OFEMILE, A.C (2010)Second assignment: Investigating Language

for EDUC 5902 Submitted to School of Education,



26/26

References/Bibliography

RICHTERICH, R & J-L Chancerel, (1980) Identifying theNeeds of Adults Learning a Foreign Language. Councilof Europe Modern Languages project. Oxford:Pergamon press

TARONE, E. (1983) Variability in Interlanguage use: astudy of style- shifting in morphology and syntax InLanguage Learning. 35/3. 373-404

TARONE, E. (1983). On the variability of InterlanguageSystems In Applied Linguistics 4/2 pp143 163

TARONE, E. (2008). A Sociolinguistic Perspective onInteraction in SLA1 In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.),Multiple Perspectives on Interaction.in SLA. RoutledgePublishers.

TARONE, E.& Liu, G. (1995).Situational context,

variation, and second language acquisition theory* In G.Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice inApplied Linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 107-124.

TOMLINSON, B (2005) Developing Principledframeworks for materials development In B,Tomlinson(Ed) Developing Materials For Language Teaching.London. Continuum. pp107-129

Voice Walker download from

http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/tools.html
http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/tools.htmlhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/tools.htmlhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/tools.htmlhttp://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/transcription/tools.html

Documents

The Implications of Inter-language Analysis in the Development of Materials for Teaching Speaking