L 154 M

Language Practice Course

In this essay, the author attempts to make an analysis of the ANG 1212 Language Practice course. The essay starts with a description of the Language Practice courses in general and continues with that of this particular course through its participants and its place. The major part of the analysis deals with the activities of the group, which are compared to the syllabus of the course.

Language Practice

Language Practice courses, together with the Educational and Formal Writing
ones, form the first group of the subjects the ”Language Development.” This groups
ends in the first examination called ”The System of the Contemporary English,”
which is the prerequisite of almost all the other subjects of literature and linguistics.

It is no accident that Language Practice courses play such a crucial part in the first two years of the university studies. The aim of these courses is to facilitate the students’ language skills development. They offer the widest choice of topics for the students to talk and write about, and the students have far more opportunity to develop their ability to express their thoughts both in writing and in speech. Language Practice courses contain four parts, each of which lasts a semester.

At the end of the first year, students are to take a so-called Proficiency Exam, which is a serious test of strength for them. According to the University Syllabus, of the four ANG 121X courses announced this spring semester, it was the ANG 1212 course that not only aimed to ”further improve all four language skills, ” but it also ”invited students to systematically build skills necessary for passing the end-of-term Proficiency Exam.” The other three did not even mention a word in connection with this exam.

One of the main attractions of this course may have been this systematic preparation for the Profi Test, which had been extremely feared by nearly all the students. The other was probably the fairly long essay, which had been advertised well in advance - in the ANG 1113 Language Practice course of the fall semester. The essay in question was to be as many as twenty pages long, which must have meant a great challenge for everyone that intended to take the course, since at this stage of the university studies no student was likely to have encountered a composition as massive and exhaustive as this. Furthermore, it was also the only Language Practice course to offer the chance for the students to apply for their places beforehand.

Unfortunately, the schedule of the classes was inconvenient for some students, as it coincided with the ”Introduction to Applied Linguistics, ” which is a lecture of great importance, too. Owing to this fact, quite a few students who had wished to enroll for this particular course could not do so.

The Participants

For the reasons above twelve students took the course and became participants in it. Of the twelve participants, eleven had already been member of much the same group - of the ANG 1113 Language Practice group. One of them, however, was a lesser-known member, because she had to miss almost all the classes of the former group owing to her long journey to India. The new member of the group was not in the least unknown to the others, either. Nearly all of them had had a chance to meet her during the previous courses of other subjects. She was believed to have a pleasant personality, and she was given a warm welcome by the course facilitator, as well.

The Place

The choice of the place for the course was unique in two ways. First, the classes were not held in the area of the Faculty of Arts of the JPU, But in the Central Library of it, which is located in Szepessy Ignác Street downtown. This building houses the Arizona Room, where the classes were actually held. Second, the Arizona Room provided the participants with the up-to-date computer technique, the GroupSystems, which helped the students to use the computer for entirely new activities, which they were unlikely to have done in class before.

Both extraordinary items of news surprised the students enrolling for the course for the first time, but they looked forward to start the class they were sure to have never experienced before. Close to the end of the course, during the Vote Session, the great majority of the participants (80%) found the location of the Arizona Room advantageous, and only a far smaller proportion (20%) considered it to be disadvantageous, as Table 1 shows.
Table 1

Vote Session Report
Session: Essay Data Collection 6 Date: 04/15/1996 10:40am

Group name: Total Group
Group size: 10 of 10

Yes/No
Number of items = 4
Participants Instructions:
(No instruction available)

Number of Votes in Each Rating

Yes% No% n

1. Could you follow the tutor’s reasoning, in general? 90.00 10.00 10
2. Was the additional material (computer list material) useful? 90.00 10.00 10
3. Did you find the location of the Arizona Room advantageous? 80.00 20.00 10
4. Was the agenda helpful in absorbing the course? 77.78 22.22 9

The Realization of the Syllabus through the Activities of the Group

The syllabus of the ANG 1212 course was a plan that stated what the participants would learn and do in this particular course. The facilitator was known to strictly follow the syllabus given to the students enrolled for his courses, and thus it was very intriguing to see how the syllabus was carried out throughout the course.

Naturally, it contained the code of the course, ANG 1212, which could be read as ANG twelve twelve. By chance twelve students enrolled for the course. What is more, the group had twelve sessions during the semester, because one of them had to be canceled owing to the spring holiday. Finally, as one Language Practice gives three credits, students finishing all the four Language Practice courses have twelve credits altogether. That is all there is to the mysterious world of the numbers.

In the syllabus one could read a very gripping ”title” for the tutor: facilitator. Later on the facilitator explained to the students why he had chosen this instead of the usual ”instructor” or ”course director.” He said he would neither give instructions to the participants nor like to direct them, and continued that directors were more typical of the film industry than of the university. In time the students experienced what the job of the facilitator was. In fact, they were not given any instructions at all, they could choose what to do. If a participant was willing to analyze a survey and draw conclusions from it, she could do it. Or any member of the group could give a lecture on any topics in connection with the coursebook, for instance, on group culture, group norms, or noise, if she felt like doing so. The facilitator proved to be extremely supportive: he, indeed, facilitated the students’ development both in writing and in speech.

It is no wonder that the course was worth three credits. As was mentioned above, it was the only course to provide the largest variety of topics for discussion and the greatest opportunity for the students to cultivate the language itself.

The classes were scheduled on Monday morning from 9.30 to 12.00. As a matter of fact, the classes started from 9.40, because another group used the Arizona Room for much the same purposes, and a short break was inevitable for the change. However, the sessions usually finished twenty minutes after noon owing to the breaks which were usually taken around in the middle of the sessions.

The prerequisite of the course, like in the case of all the other ANG 121X courses, was one of the ANG 111X ones, which is just natural in the first group of subjects, as Language Practice courses are based on each other for the students to achieve a real language development.

Certainly, the biggest part of the syllabus was taken up by a fairly exhaustive description of the course, which started with setting almost the same aim as had been revealed in the University Syllabus. However, it was worth noticing that the formerly mentioned expression ”build skills” had been replaced by a new one ”strengthening skills.” In the following two lines a very appealing statement saying ”participants will be using individual, pair and team learning techniques.” There is no doubt that the participants had had little chance of reading such an attractive invitation to a course.

These techniques were assisted by The GroupSystems, which could be only available in the Arizona Room.

The next part of the syllabus dealt with the Themes of the Sessions, which, of course, comprised all four major language skills:

As to the Listening Comprehension, it turned out that the facilitator would be preparing the Listening Comprehension for the Proficiency worksheet. The title of the narrative was ”The Lucky Story of the Holiday Money,” and the participants’ task was to listen to the story twice, and afterwards they had two minutes to finalize. The questions varied from marking things in the order of their appearance to checking items on the checklist.

The succeeding level was a tape about the product called ELLIS. The answer sheet was made up of three parts. In the first part, the participants were to check the items; in the second, they had to complete information; and in the third, they were to check a list. Completing information proved to be time-consuming, and thus a promise was made by the facilitator, according to whom, students sitting the Exam would not be meeting such a test. Furthermore, this was the first test to give a credit score.

The second one giving scores was about an interview with Tina Rosenberg, who told two stories. The students’ job was to check topics that were mentioned. This final test had much of the same format as the one of the Profi Exam.

According to the syllabus, the speaking unit comprised four parts: describing, analyzing, brainstorming and convincing. It would have been utterly difficult to separate these, as while the topic ”happiness” was being discussed, brainstorming must have taken place simultaneously with describing what was meant by ”happiness” on the part of the members of the group. Furthermore, they tried to convince each other of their point of view, which turned out to be exceedingly fascinating. Analyzing the data of the survey carried out during the session also proved to be extremely intriguing, since everyone interpreted the findings according to their own aspects. Not only did they add their own comments to the analysis, but they also used non-verbal communication meanwhile. As Table 2 reveals, however, only a bit more than of the voters stated that non-verbal communication played a big part. Naturally, in group work not every member had the opportunity to speak, therefore they had to use non-verbal communication to express their attitudes and opinions. The survey also pointed out that no one of the group considered this type of communication to be more momentous in class than out of it.

Table 2

Vote Session Report
Session: Essay Collection Data 7 Date 04/15/1996 10:52am

Group name: Total Group
Group size: 9 of 9

Yes/No
Number of items = 3

Participant Instructions:
(No instructions available)

Number of Votes in Each Rating
Yes% No% n
1. Does non-verbal communication play a big part in this group? 55.56 44.44 9
2. Is eye-contact more important than other gestural communication? 33.33 66.67 9
3. Is non-verbal communication more important in class than out of class? 0.00 100.00 9

As far as the reading section was concerned, obviously, there was a required reading for the course, the title of which was ”Groups in Context.” Besides the book, the facilitator took the initiative in establishing a library of the course. He brought a pile of books in the class, and every member of the group could borrow them. The choice of the books ranged from the ones on computer techniques to best-sellers. In addition, there were a great number of magazines, as well. The participants were encouraged to bring their own books, too.

In the syllabus the writing part of the session encompassed group writing, peer editing, proofreading and commenting. Again the activities were too difficult to be separated:

The participants commented on the topic ”What does the word member mean to you ?” while they did group writing. Furthermore, it had to be a sort of brainstorming, too. It was also one of the most entertaining moments of the course, since the humor on the part of the group as usual emerged, that is , a participant printed in the answer ”Member of Parliament.”

Proofreading was represented in a way, as well. The participants had the chance to write either a short essay or paragraph lacking its every fifth words. Unfortunately, not many participants took the trouble to do it, and as a result of this, it was only the facilitator who filled the gaps out commenting on the composition at the same time.

The facilitator also showed how to write an essay with ease through group writing, which was both convincing and emboldening. In as many as twenty minutes the group members present wrote an eight-page-long essay.

Most participants were terribly afraid of the Essay Test of the Proficiency Exam, therefore the facilitator worked out a system which could strengthen the essay writing skills. First, the members were given a sample of the Essay Test, as Table 3 shows, so as to get the hang of how to choose the title which suited best the writer. Their task was to only decide on the title and think about how to separate the paragraphs.

Table 3

Discuss the design of Dallas
Evaluate the esthetics of the English Department
Refute the theory about the literary value of coffee cups
the use of the University Syllabi

The next stage, as Table 4 displays, was to choose a title and elaborate either a short essay or a paragraph on the topic, and the facilitator corrected the mistakes.

Table 4
Present a view on Vlaskovits Dóra
Explain the ideas and activities of Nagy Emese
Discuss hostility
Identify reasons for T-shirts
Raise doubts about dolls

Furthermore, students were recommended to reflect on their basic essay language skills, that is, what they were satisfied with and what their weak points were. They were advised to write an example of each, which were talked over in the following session.

Finally, they were given a set title ”Discuss the Uses of the Armchair.” They got a guidance as to how to elaborate the topic, so to speak, who, how, where, when and why used or uses the armchair. In addition, the participants were warned that all the three components of the title must be worked out in detail so that they would achieve a fairly acceptable essay.

The end-of-term essay advertised in advance was reduced to a fifteen-page one in the syllabus, which could have made it easier for the participants to write. Close to the end of the course, however, it turned out that the students’ ideas about the essay was not at all clear. As Table 5 reveals, only one of the voters had somewhat clear ideas, the others were not certain about them.

Table 5

Vote Session Report
Session: Essay Data Collection 8 Date: 04/15/1996 11:05am

Group name: Total Group
Group size: 9 of 9

10-Point Scale
Number of items = 5

Participants Instructions:
(No instruction available)

Number of Votes in Each Rating


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. How much will you make use of additional course material in the essay? 1 - - - - 3 1 2 1 1
2. How much will you make use of the coursebook in the essay? - - 1 2 - - 1 4 - 1
3. How much will you make use of your past experiences in the essay? 1 - 1 - - 3 - 3 1 -
4. How difficult do you find the essay after this class? 1 - 1 - 2 1 1 2 - 1
5. How clear are your ideas about the essay? - 4 1 3 1 - - - - -

Number of Votes in Each Rating

Mean STD n
1. How much will you make use of additional course material in the essay? 6.78 2.59 9
2. How much will you make use of the coursebook in the essay? 6.67 2.40 9
3. How much will you make use of your past experiences in the essay? 6.11 2.62 9
4. How difficult do you find the essay after this class? 5.89 2.76 9
5. How clear are your ideas about the essay? 3.11 1.17 9

With the exception of two participants, they found the essay quite difficult in spite of the fact that they had the opportunity to collect data, which could help them write the essay. However, nearly all the students were likely to make use of the additional course material, the coursebook, and their past experiences, while writing the essay, but the past experiences were a bit less likely to be used than the others. It was surprising to see that one participant did not intend to employ the additional material, neither did another member want to utilize her past experiences.

In general, the main emphasis is put on the evaluation of the activities of the students during their university studies, which is just natural. The facilitator developed quite a fair system of evaluation based on the performance of the participants throughout the course. The marks depended on the students’ attendance, both the oral and writing skills, and the three Listening Comprehension Tests. Two problems, however, may arise when putting the system listed in the syllabus into practice. First, the marks for the attendance must be lowered owing to the spring holiday, which was extended, and as a result of this one more class had to be canceled. Second, due to the lack of time, the third Listening Comprehension Test was also called off, though, the participants still have the opportunity to be given the mean of the marks of the two previous tests.

As is displayed in Table 6, the students already evaluated themselves during the Vote Session.

Table 6

Vote Session Report
Session: Essay Data Collection 1 Date: 04/15/1996 09:28am

Group name: Total Group
Group size: 8 of 8

Agree/Disagree
Number of items = 4

Participants Instructions:
Please decide how much you agree or disagree with each the following four statements

Number of Votes in Each Rating

SA-Strongly Agree A-Agree N-Neutral D-Disagree SD-Strongly Disagree
SA A N D SD Mean STD n
1. The participants were understanding. 3 4 1 - - A 0.71 8
2. The participants were cheerful. 2 4 2 - - A 0.76 8
3. The participants were helpful. 1 5 1 - 1 A 1.19 8
4. The participants were hard-working. 1 1 5 1 - N 0.89 8

More than half of the participants had a neutral opinion of whether they were hard-working or not. One voter considered the group to be not at all assiduous. As to the other item ”The participants were helpful,” this statement was approved by more than half of the voters. One participant sat on the fence, and another one strongly disagreed with the item.

Conclusion

When drawing a conclusion, the author wishes to emphasize that despite not only the difficulties emerged during the course but the fears growing because of the impending end-of-term exam, too, the facilitator was, indeed, successful in achieving the aims of the course. It would be entirely deceptive to claim that some goals were not reached, since the Exam pretended to be so awesome that the participants cannot but dread it all the time, and thus the facilitator feeling obliged to leave out a few points of the agenda and came to the rescue of the students at full stretch.

In fact, he took great pains to remove the rumors arisen around the Exam and to get the participants accustomed to the nature and the atmosphere of the test. He was the first to use the expression Profi Test instead of the appalling Proficiency Exam. Were it not for the effort he had put into his preparing the group for the Profi Test, they may not have overcome the difficulties occurring due to the strain and stress and the Exam would have taken a much too heavier toll.