The aim of my essay is to give a general picture of the participants' opinion about the Language Practice course coded ANG1212, based on a survey among the participants of the course. First I will introduce the course itself, showing its aims that have been stated in the beginning of the semester. I will tell about the participants, and the conditions concerning the sessions. Next, I will show the questions the students participating in the course were asked to answer, indicating the number of answers given to each of these questions. As the questions relate to various subjects, I will evaluate them in question-groups, each of which involves one specific topic, such as the usefulness of the handout, the attitude to the computer system used during the sessions, the expectations and conclusions concerning the course, etc. After evaluating all the question-groups, I will finally draw a conclusion, which will be strictly based on the data reflected by the questionnaires.
Introduction of the course
The Language Practice ANG1212 course this essay aims to reflect on took place at Janus Pannonius University English Department, Pecs, during the spring semester 1996. Twelve students and the tutor, Horvath Jozsef, participated in the sessions held on Mondays, 9.40 am to 12.10 pm. The sessions took place off-campus, in the building of the University Library, in the Arizona Room, which is equipped with a computer system designed for small group discussions.
The aim of the course stated in the syllabus was "...to facilitate further development of all major language skills" and "to assist students in strengthening skills necessary for passing the end-of-semester Proficiency Exam." (Course Syllabus) It also aimed at studying small group behaviour. To support these aims, additional materials were used, such as the computer system called GroupSystems V, with the help of which small group discussions were possible. The printed additional material included the required reading 1, Wilson, G L and Hanna, M S (1990). Groups in Context. Leadership and Participation in Small Groups, of which photocopies were available for the students, session data printouts and World Wide Web texts, which were available either photocopied or through the WWW.
Introduction of the questions
The students participating in the course were asked to fill in the following questionnaire anonymously. After each question the number of answers is indicated. (A copy of the original Questionnaire is included in the Appendix.)
1. Did you read the whole handout given by the tutor?
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)
2. Did you find the handout useful from language-learning point of view?
a. Yes (7) b. No (5)
3. Did you find the handout useful for learning about behaviour in small groups?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
4. Have you observed any change in your behaviour in certain groups?
(the change of your roles, etc. )
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)
5. Do you think the group underwent any changes in regarding the roles within it?
a. Yes (5) b. No (7)
6. Can you name the computer program we used during the semester in the sessions?
a. Yes .............................................(10) b. No (2)
7. Did you find the system helpful for discussing certain items?
a. Yes (9) b. No (3)
8. Has your attitude towards computers change in any way? If yes, in what way?
a. Yes .............................................(4) b. No (8)
9. Did you participate in course ANG1113 last semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
10. Did you intend to join course ANG1212 this semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
11. Do you think the fact that the group members were not completely unknown to one another was important regarding the discussions?
a. Yes (12) b. No (0)
12. Have your speaking skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (1) b. No (11)
13. Have your writing skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (4) b. No (8)
14. Do you think it is mostly your fault, or the organisation of the sessions played bigger part? 2
a. Yes (Mostly my fault) (7) b. No (The organisation's fault) (4)3
For the essay I also used questions from the Essay Data Collection 4 04/15/1996 (question 15), Essay Data Collection 5 04/15/1996 (question 16), and Essay Data Collection 6 04/15/1996 (question 18). These questions were answered by ten students during the session April 15th, 1996, and were the following:
15. How difficult is it to categorise group members using the book’s 4 ideas?
(The students had to rate the answers on a scale of 1-10, where, the more difficult the categorisation was, the higher number on the scale was marked.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- - - - 3 2 2 - 2 1
16. Are you an equal member of this group?
a. Yes (10) b. No (0)
18. Was the additional material (compu, list material) useful?
a. Yes (9) b. No (1)
Evaluation of the questions in question-groups
Question-group I. (questions 1-3)
These questions concern the usefulness of the handout for the course:
1. Did you read the whole handout given by the tutor?
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)
2. Did you find the handout useful from language-learning point of view?
a. Yes (7) b. No (5)
3. Did you find the handout useful for learning about behaviour in small groups?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
Seven students found the text useful from language learning point of view, while eleven of them found it useful for learning about behaviour in small groups. Five participants claimed the text to be useless for language learning, and one person found the handout useless for learning about small group behaviour.
When evaluating the answers to these questions, it is interesting to see that ten people have not read the total of the handout. It must be stated here that the tutor did not insist on the group reading the whole text, but certain chapters of it. Regarding the usefulness, however, it can be questioned whether only parts of the text can substitute the value of the total. Yet, as the whole group, with one exception, was satisfied with what they learnt about small group behaviour , even if not having read the whole handout, it seems that parts can carry through the meaning, or the quality of the whole. Thus, it can be presumed that language-learning characteristics were also present in the read chapters just like those elements related to small group behaviour. The opinions about language-learning characteristics, though, differ from the ones related to small group behaviour. The fact that more students were not satisfied with the language-learning features of the text suggests that the handout was not able to fulfil the requirements regarding this field.
Question-group II. (questions 4, 5, 15)
The questions in this group relate to the roles within the group and the students' behaviour outside the group:
4. Have you observed any change in your behaviour in certain groups? (the change of your roles, etc.)
a. Yes (2) b. No (10)
5. Do you think the group underwent any changes in regarding the roles within it?
a. Yes (5) b. No (7)
15. How difficult is it to categorise group members using the book’s 5 ideas?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- - - - 3 2 2 - 2 1
Ten people have not observed any change in their behaviour in certain groups, which means their roles have not changed. Seven people found that there had been no change of the roles within the group, either.
These answers are interesting to see regarding that among the course's aims one of the important was the study of small group behaviour. This includes the different roles within small groups, participation in discussions, etc. The handout was meant to help in defining the roles.
The fact that only a few participants observed role-changes within the group can be interpreted in two ways:
1. The roles within the group were already established and only minor changes could have happened, thus not every student was able to perceive the changes, but the ones paying close attention. This assumption is supported by the fact that the group members had known one another before from Language Practice course ANG1113, from the previous semester. (For more details about this see Question-group V. pg. 12)
2. The roles were mot established, but recognising the roles was not easy. Question 15. shows that out of ten students, who were present at the session on April 15th, 1996, three found categorising group members using the handout's ideas fairly difficult, and six of them said it was not easy. This can explain why the students have not observed any changes in the roles: setting the basic roles could have meant the main problem, thus changes were even harder to recognise.
In observing changes in the participants' own roles in various groups, the answers can also lead to two assumptions:
1. The participants had stable roles in different groups, that was the reason for the roles not having changed.
2. Categorising using the handout's ideas was difficult, thus the participants had problems in stating their own roles and the changes of them, too.
A main contradiction appears in connection with the answers to questions 1., 4 and 5, and leads to a question: If the handout was useful for learning about small group behaviour e.i. group roles, yet the participants could not recognise the roles, what does the term "useful" correspond to? The explanation can lay in the assumptions to the answers of questions 4. and 5., namely that the handout was useful, but because of stable roles changes have not taken place. Another explanation can be, however, that the participants interpreted term "useful" in a special way. Also it is possible that the students have not observed the roles profoundly. This would explain the usefulness of the handout and the fact that not many role-changes have been observed, by the participants. However, the questions do not look for the reasons, thus these interpretations and explanations remain assumptions.
Question-group III. (questions 6-8)
These questions relate to the computer system used during the sessions, and to a general attitude towards computers:
6. Can you name the computer program we used during the sessions?
a. Yes .............................................(10) b. No (2)
7. Did you find the system helpful for discussing certain items?
a. Yes (9) b. No (3)
8. Has your attitude towards computers changed in any way? If yes, in what way?
a. Yes .............................................(4) b. No (8)
Question 6. is more of a personal curiosity, with which my purpose was not only to put the students' memory to a test, but to measure their attitude to the system. This measuring is based on a hypothesis, according to which people can recall the name of things that are of a certain importance to them better, than of those they have not many interest in. According to this hypothesis, there should be some kind of relation between the answers to questions 6. and 7., namely, that the number of those who found the computer system helpful is likely to show similarity with those who could recall the name of it right. The hypothesis seems to be supported by the answers for the first sight, as two people could not recall the name of the computer system used, and three people found the system not helpful for discussing certain items. However, only one of these people gave answer "No" to both questions, and found GroupSystems not only useless for discussion, but could not recall the name of the program, either. The remaining "No" answers belong to three different people.
Whether the students' attitude towards computers has changed in any way or not, can be seen in the answers to question no. 8. Eight people found that their attitude has not changed, while four people claimed to have experienced some change in theirs. Among those students whose attitude has not changed, it is not indicated what the cause of this stableness may be. They might have had a rather positive relation to computers that was hard to change in any way, or a very negative one, with the same characteristics. For those, however, who have experienced a change in their attitude, the change was positive. All of them got to like or accept computers more than they did in the beginning of the course: "I can accept them, but I'm hopeless at using them." "I'm less scared." "I find it more useful." "I actually started to like them."
Question-group IV. (questions 9, 10, 11, 17)
These questions concern the participants' relationship with one another, and the importance of it:
9. Did you participate in course ANG1113 last semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
10. Did you intend to join course ANG1212 this semester?
a. Yes (11) b. No (1)
11. Do you think the fact that the group members were not completely unknown to one another was important regarding the discussions?
a. Yes (12) b. No (0)
16. Are you an equal member of this group?
a. Yes (10) b. No (0)
Eleven people participated in course ANG1113 last semester, one person did not. Also eleven people intended to join course ANG1212, which means they did not join the course by chance, but they planned it in their schedules. Every student found it important regarding the discussions that they were not completely unknown to one another. Every student out of the ten, who were present on the session on April 15th, 1996, claimed themselves to be equal members of the group.
The data reflected by these answers are important regarding the groups' discussions and the relationships within it. These facts can not only mean support to certain assumptions, as seen in Question-group II., pg. 8, but can show a general feature of well-working groups. Students claim that when having small group discussions, it is important that the members know each other. This can be related to the roles within the group, as in a "new group" the formation of roles takes certain amount of time and discussions about previously set topics is held back more than in a groups with members who know one another. As the members of this group had known each other already, discussion was possible during the first sessions.
Being equal member of a group is also essential to be able to discuss items without tension. As 100% of the students who answered question 16. said they were equal members of the group, it is very likely that discussions were not stopped by tension caused by someone feeling unequal.
Question-group V. (questions 12, 13, 14)
These questions reflect how much the participants' expectations concerning certain language skills have fulfilled by the end of the course.
12. Have your speaking skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (1) b. No (11)
13. Have your writing skills improved as much as you expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester?
a. Yes (4) b. No (8)
14. Do you think it is mostly your fault, or the organisation of the sessions played bigger part?
a. Yes (Mostly my fault) (7) b. No (The organisation's fault) (4)
Eleven students' speaking skills have not improved as much as they expected it to happen in the beginning of the semester, while eight people think the same regarding their writing skills. Seven people found this improvement was due to themselves or not having improved was their own fault, four people give credit to, or blame, the organisation of the sessions.
As it has been stated in the syllable, the course aimed at improving the major language skills. During the sessions discussions served the speaking practice and home assignments were planned to help improve writing skills. There were also writing exercises during the sessions, most of which were in connection with the study of small group behaviour.
The fact that the majority of the participants were not satisfied with skills' improvement suggests that either the participants' efforts or the methods of the tutor, or both, were not satisfactory. When looking at question 14., it appears that some participants admit to having not made enough effort. In terms of actions this meant not being present at the discussions, and not preparing home assignments for the sessions.
The assumption that the organisation of the sessions was not satisfactory, either, seems to be supported by the answers given to question 2. (Question-group I., pg. 7) As the answers show that some students did not find the handout useful for language-learning, their skills were probably not able to improve at wished rate. However, the answers to question 14. do not show whether the "satisfied" participants gave credit to themselves to to the organisation, and it is not indicated whether the ones not satisfied with the improvements blame themselves or the organisation. As all assumptions supported by certain data, it is likely that mistakes have been made from both sides -- the participants and the tutor's side.
Conclusions
The answers to the questions show the opinions of the students participating in the course. The data carried in the answers seem to be contradictional in some cases and the reasons for the answers are not indicated in the questionnaire. For each question-group a conclusion can be drawn:
Question-group I.
The handout was found useful for the majority of the participants for language learning and for learning about small group behaviour. The fact that not every student was satisfied with the handout suggests that there might have been a better choice of the tutor. The participants, however, seem not to have made as much effort as possible, either, as far as the reading of the handout is concerned.
Question-group II.
A few participants perceived changes of roles within the group or the change of their own roles in various groups. This can either be because of the stableness of the roles or because of the difficulties the role-categorisation caused. It seems that participants have not studied roles profoundly, or because of lack of interest they have not paid close attention. Either the more profound study of roles or the of the instructions of the handout itself, or more interest could have meant more involvement, thus result in a higher rate of realising roles and the changes of roles.
Question-group III.
The computer system GroupSystems V got a positive judgement from the participants. The majority of them found the system useful for discussions and the changes in their attitudes towards computers were all positive. The tutor's decision to use the system appears to be one that had good impact on the discussions.
Question-group IV.
The group members were not unknown to one another, which fact was important regarding the discussions. The members also felt equality within the group. It appears that small group discussions are more effective when members know one another, and feel equal with the group.
This can be useful regarding not only this course, but other seminars, and university groups, too.
Question-group V.
The expectations of most of the participants have not been fulfilled, as far as the language (speaking and writing) skills are concerned. Many participants found the reason of this fact in themselves, while some claimed the organisation of the course for it. Taking all the data into account, both the participants and the tutor made certain mistakes, which altogether resulted the opinions carried in the answers.
When revising all the data from the answers, it appears that the participants are satisfied with some aspects of the course, while not satisfied with others. When looking at the reasons, it can be seen that most assumptions are supported by various facts, and there seems to be no single exact reason, but more factors created the final result. The participants and the tutor of the course all seem to have made both efforts and mistakes, the result of which was a course that has not been useless, and had its positive effects, but one that could have given more
1 In the essay this text will be referred to as "the handout".
2 The author of the questionnaire has made an obvious mistake in this question, and has created an "implicit answer" to the previous questions. As the students have all answered to this question though, having changed it would not have been ethical.
3 As one person has not answered this question, the total of the answers is eleven, not twelve, here.
4 The term "book" here stands for "handout".
5 The term "book" here stands for "handout".
Showing posts with label course analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label course analysis. Show all posts
Friday, May 11, 2007
L 202 F
A new method has been applied in the traditional and obligatory Language practice section for a group of English major students in the second semester of the year 1995-96: one that above the facilitation of further development of all four major language skills (as well as undertaking to assist students in stregthening skills necessary for passing the end-of-semester Proficiency Exam) focuced attention on itself. By itself we mean both the programme of the section and the group.
The classes were held in the Arizona Room of the University Library, equipped with computers, hence permitting the familiarisation and/or the regular use of computers for students. The themes of the sessions were the following: listening comprehension, speaking (describing, analysing, brainstorming and convincing), reading and writing (group writing, peer editing, proofreading and commenting). It is important to note that the group - with only one exception - had already worked together and with the same teacher during a whole semester: a fact that explains how and why it was easy for them to work with new techniques and in new circumstances.
The fact that all members of the group knew each other and that the sessions were held at a location with modern, high tech equipment, created an agreeable, free ambiance which enabled the realisation of the aims of the programme. A complex interactive prosess between teacher and the group as well as within the group could develop throughout the term.
From the point of view of interaction two basically different situations succeded during the sessions, that can be best demonstrated by the description of the "setting": 1. the group (including the teacher) sitting in a circle, everybody in contact with everybody, 2. the students sitting each in front of a computer, in two rows forming an "L", in front of the teacher and the main computer screen. (Shorter periods of movement, pauses etc. interrupted the longer periods mentioned above.)
II. THE FOCUS OF THE OBSERVATION
When observing group interaction in a classroom setting, the goal of the observation should be decided: observing interaction, the roles being played, the leadership, the problem-solving process and the overall effectiveness would be an overestimated enterprise. Hence, I shall focus my attention on the verbal behaviour of the group and for this I shall profit of the classic interaction analysis system of Flanders'.
I decided to attend only to the verbal behaviour present in the student-teacher interactions because verbal behaviour can be more reliably measured than nonverbal behaviour.
III. FEEDBACK - WHY FLANDERS?
In any form of communication there is need for feedback - indeed so in language practice, or preferably 'teaching practice' in our case. "Feedback is the idea that, so far as communication systems are conscerned, one participant's response helps to correct and control another's message by an ongoing feedback process.” 1 Feedback differs widely in kind. Present essay is one of a sort and what is proposes can be a continous and reliable feedback system in the future.
Flanders' observational system, often reffered to as "the most sophisticated technique for observing classroom climate” 2 is particularly appropriate for the foreign language field because it is concerned with verbal behaviour. The categories of the various patterns of verbal behaviour help both to observe and to analyse. These categories were used first to determine normative patterns of classroom interaction between teachers and students, and later in the inservice training of teachers as a tool for self-analysis and self-improvement. Still, interaction analysis is primarily a method of providing a feedback system to the teacher about his classroom behaviour. Although I am not a trained observer, I have personal experience since I was an active part of the group. Since my active participation has not allowed me a consecutive observation up to now, my proposal of an observational system is not other than an alternative to acquire further systematic feedback in the future.
IV. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FLANDERS' INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
(After Dick Allwright)3
The interaction analysis, a method of providing a feedback system to the teacher about his classroom behaviour is based on a category-system. The observations of teacher-student verbal behavior must fall into one of the ten categories which in brief consist: of teacher talk of an indirect form (1) accepting feelings, (2) praising or encouraging, (3) accepting ideas, and (4) asking questions; or of a direct nature (5) lecturing, (6) giving directions, (7) criticizing or justifying authority. Student talk is classified as either (8) responding to teacher or (9) initiating talk. A final, multi-purpose category (10) is labelled silence or confusion.
"The method of observation includes recording, by three second intervals in a consecutive tally, the category number of the behavior just observed. Category numbers are repeated if the behavior, regardless of duration, calls for a different category classification.(...)
The raw data, collected in tally form during the course of the observations, are entered into a ten-row by ten-column matrix, from which it is possible to retrieve information regarding the sequence of events (i.e., what happened after each event) which occured during the class section observed. It is also proposed that certain categories be compared with one another to yield various ratios, for exemple, between direct and indirect teacher behaviors or between teacher and student talk. Further, the observer can calculate the percentage of each category recorded as compared to all others (for exemple, during the ten minute session 4% of the teacher's verbal behaviour may be classified as category 1, 12% as category 2, etc.)."4
Among the numerous advantages of the interaction analysis observational system are the following: teachers can discover and evaluate to what extent they reached the goals they have established for their teaching. They can also identify themselves as being more or less direct, critical, receptive to ideas, questioning, etc.
Joining the practitioners of interaction analysis who consistently agree that the Flanders system does not judge, interpret, or tell a teacher how to improve his teaching, we are dealing with the system because it is simply a way of looking at teaching; only the teacher can place a value on what he does.
Several researchers have adopted the interaction analysis system in the field of foreign language, among them Gertrude Moskowitz who presented the most extensive work and introduced his new system called Flint (Foreign Language Interaction) which includes twelve additional categories compared to the Flanders' system and also operates with the help of a matrix. Also, numerous alternatives of the Flanders' system and critiques on it have been presented. Bailey's objections are of special interest, being an internal attack on the practicality of using such categories.
However, here - in the limits of the present paper - we shall not deal with the alternatives in detail but propose a new category-system that fits the setting and the work of the classroom of the course 1212.
V. A NEW REFORMATION OF THE FLANDERS CATEGORY-SYSTEM
A closer look at the original ten categories established by Flanders 5 will permit their application to the interactional situation of the course in question.
The first group consist of four categories of teacher talk with indirect influence:
1. Accept feelings - the teacher accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. - The category refers to an attitude that is both present and needed in the language practice course.
2. Praises or encourages - the teacher praises or encourages student action or behaviour. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, 'um hm?' or 'go on' are included. - Similarly to category one, this is an important and frequent situation.
3. Accepts or uses ideas of student - clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. - This is not only a frequent but a very specific situation to the language practice course.
4. Asks questions - asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer. - Frequent and important category as well.
The second group consist of three categories of teacher talk with direct influence. Here, certain modifications will have to be made.
5. Lecturing - giving facts or opinions about content or procedure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. - Lecturing is the element that is completely missing in the group work of the section, hence this category shall be left out. Another category shall be introduced instead at the appropriate place.
6. Giving directions - directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. - Because a considerable part of the work is done on computers (often interrupted and always followed by verbal comments, discussion, etc.) these directions also include all directions concerning the work on computers.
7. Criticizing or justifying authority - statements intended to change student behaviour from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference. - This sort of self-reference is not specific to the course, the category can be left out.
Two categories are established for the student talk:
8. Student talk - response - a student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement and sets limits to what the student says.
9. Student talk - initiation - talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas. - This category is one that refers to an interactive situation very specific to the course. When discussion is taking place, the students usually talk much more than the teacher and often respond to each other expressing new ideas. Category 9 shall be completed and a new category established to mark the difference between the two kinds of student talk:
9*. Student talk to teacher - initiation (the description remains the same).
1O*. Student talk to student - initiation - talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to another student.
The last and separate category is indeed necessary:
1O. Silence or confusion - pauses, short period of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.
As the computer takes a major part in the work - sometime even replaces the teacher in some sense - , one category should be added referring to verbal behaviour in connection with the computer:
11*. Student talk 'to computer' - unpredictable statements, comments by students in response/concerning the work done on computers (for example the comparative analysis of the written responses to a question given via network system). - This kind of verbal behaviour - like the students talk in general - is provoked, initiated by the teacher, still it should fall into this category to be differentiated from other kinds of verbal expression, not directly related to technical instruments.
With the modifications and adjustements the new ten categories are the following:
Teacher talk with indirect influence:
1. Accept feelings;
2. Praises or encourages;
3. Accepts or uses ideas of students;
4. Ask questions;
Teacher talk with direct influence:
5. Giving directions;
Student talk:
6. Student talk - response;
7. Student talk to teacher - initiation;
8. Student talk to student - initiation;
9. Student talk 'to computer';
---
1O. Silence or confusion.
When the tallies are entered into a ten by ten matrix they result in a graphic picture of the lesson. The matrix preserves the general time sequence of the interaction by illustrating which behaviours immediately preceded or followed others. The study of the matrix (calculation of percentages for each categories, for teacher talk and student talk and silence or confusion) permits the discovery and analysis of teaching patterns: ratios of the amount of indirect or direct influence the teacher used are determined, each focusing on a different )relationship. (Here we are not dealing with the techniques of the analysis.)
VI. ESTIMATES - (to be testified in the next semester?)
Without sufficient data I give only estimates for the different relationships - it would be interesting to adapt the interaction analysis system in the next semester course and testify the results.
1. What percentage of the class time does the teacher talk? - 3O %.
2. What percentage of the class do the students talk?
- 7O %.
3. Does the teacher use more indirect or direct influence during a lesson? - 4. Is the teacher more indirect or direct in the way he motivates and controls the class?
- The changes made in the categories, notably the fact that only one category is left for direct influence and all the four are left for the direct influence should still give the right percentage for direct and indirect teacher talk. It is not at all by accident that we got this one-to-four proportion: we are concerned with a university language course, where opposed to the traditional teacher-lecturer, the role of the teacher is much more of a dominating group member, who indirectly initiates the other members of the group. Hence, in my estimation the teacher uses twice as much indirect than direct influence in course 1212 (q3) and is much more indirect than direct in the way he motivates and controls the class (q4). Although he often uses directions, commands to help the work go on, more nuanced indirect influence is needed in most of the cases.
5. What kind of immediate feedback does the teacher give to students after they respond? - The most common immediate feedback the teacher gives is the acceptance and use of ideas of students (category 3). Because students are usually given the possibility of not only presenting their ideas, but - after having heard the teacher's and the other students' comments and opinions - developing them further, the best way to motivate them is by using their ideas: this way they can be sure it was worth telling their thoughts.
6. To what extent do students participate for extended periods of time? - They indeed participate for extended periods of time both individually, in pairs and especially in overall group activities. Here we only deal with verbal behaviour, if written work (computers) was counted, the participation of student should be even more.
7. What behaviours does the teacher use to elicit student response in the class? - He most often accepts and uses ideas of the students and ask questions.
8. To what extent are student responses which are called for by the teacher narrow, predictable ones and to what extent are students given the opportunity to bring in their own ideas? - In most of the cases the students are given the opportunity to bring in their new ideas. The narrow and predictable responses mostly refer to simple matters of the task itself, not discussional topics.
VII. FUTURE APPLICATION IN TEACHER PRACTICE
Are we dealing with language practice or teaching practice? If the latter (or both), why not to apply a systematic feedback-system?
The original Flanders' interaction analysis system was established and applied for trainees: can the members of the group not, in some sense be considered as trainees? Even if not, couldn't active language practice students be observers of the interactive process of their own group and teacher? Wouldn't that be an interesting teaching practice for both students and teacher?
The classes were held in the Arizona Room of the University Library, equipped with computers, hence permitting the familiarisation and/or the regular use of computers for students. The themes of the sessions were the following: listening comprehension, speaking (describing, analysing, brainstorming and convincing), reading and writing (group writing, peer editing, proofreading and commenting). It is important to note that the group - with only one exception - had already worked together and with the same teacher during a whole semester: a fact that explains how and why it was easy for them to work with new techniques and in new circumstances.
The fact that all members of the group knew each other and that the sessions were held at a location with modern, high tech equipment, created an agreeable, free ambiance which enabled the realisation of the aims of the programme. A complex interactive prosess between teacher and the group as well as within the group could develop throughout the term.
From the point of view of interaction two basically different situations succeded during the sessions, that can be best demonstrated by the description of the "setting": 1. the group (including the teacher) sitting in a circle, everybody in contact with everybody, 2. the students sitting each in front of a computer, in two rows forming an "L", in front of the teacher and the main computer screen. (Shorter periods of movement, pauses etc. interrupted the longer periods mentioned above.)
II. THE FOCUS OF THE OBSERVATION
When observing group interaction in a classroom setting, the goal of the observation should be decided: observing interaction, the roles being played, the leadership, the problem-solving process and the overall effectiveness would be an overestimated enterprise. Hence, I shall focus my attention on the verbal behaviour of the group and for this I shall profit of the classic interaction analysis system of Flanders'.
I decided to attend only to the verbal behaviour present in the student-teacher interactions because verbal behaviour can be more reliably measured than nonverbal behaviour.
III. FEEDBACK - WHY FLANDERS?
In any form of communication there is need for feedback - indeed so in language practice, or preferably 'teaching practice' in our case. "Feedback is the idea that, so far as communication systems are conscerned, one participant's response helps to correct and control another's message by an ongoing feedback process.” 1 Feedback differs widely in kind. Present essay is one of a sort and what is proposes can be a continous and reliable feedback system in the future.
Flanders' observational system, often reffered to as "the most sophisticated technique for observing classroom climate” 2 is particularly appropriate for the foreign language field because it is concerned with verbal behaviour. The categories of the various patterns of verbal behaviour help both to observe and to analyse. These categories were used first to determine normative patterns of classroom interaction between teachers and students, and later in the inservice training of teachers as a tool for self-analysis and self-improvement. Still, interaction analysis is primarily a method of providing a feedback system to the teacher about his classroom behaviour. Although I am not a trained observer, I have personal experience since I was an active part of the group. Since my active participation has not allowed me a consecutive observation up to now, my proposal of an observational system is not other than an alternative to acquire further systematic feedback in the future.
IV. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FLANDERS' INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
(After Dick Allwright)3
The interaction analysis, a method of providing a feedback system to the teacher about his classroom behaviour is based on a category-system. The observations of teacher-student verbal behavior must fall into one of the ten categories which in brief consist: of teacher talk of an indirect form (1) accepting feelings, (2) praising or encouraging, (3) accepting ideas, and (4) asking questions; or of a direct nature (5) lecturing, (6) giving directions, (7) criticizing or justifying authority. Student talk is classified as either (8) responding to teacher or (9) initiating talk. A final, multi-purpose category (10) is labelled silence or confusion.
"The method of observation includes recording, by three second intervals in a consecutive tally, the category number of the behavior just observed. Category numbers are repeated if the behavior, regardless of duration, calls for a different category classification.(...)
The raw data, collected in tally form during the course of the observations, are entered into a ten-row by ten-column matrix, from which it is possible to retrieve information regarding the sequence of events (i.e., what happened after each event) which occured during the class section observed. It is also proposed that certain categories be compared with one another to yield various ratios, for exemple, between direct and indirect teacher behaviors or between teacher and student talk. Further, the observer can calculate the percentage of each category recorded as compared to all others (for exemple, during the ten minute session 4% of the teacher's verbal behaviour may be classified as category 1, 12% as category 2, etc.)."4
Among the numerous advantages of the interaction analysis observational system are the following: teachers can discover and evaluate to what extent they reached the goals they have established for their teaching. They can also identify themselves as being more or less direct, critical, receptive to ideas, questioning, etc.
Joining the practitioners of interaction analysis who consistently agree that the Flanders system does not judge, interpret, or tell a teacher how to improve his teaching, we are dealing with the system because it is simply a way of looking at teaching; only the teacher can place a value on what he does.
Several researchers have adopted the interaction analysis system in the field of foreign language, among them Gertrude Moskowitz who presented the most extensive work and introduced his new system called Flint (Foreign Language Interaction) which includes twelve additional categories compared to the Flanders' system and also operates with the help of a matrix. Also, numerous alternatives of the Flanders' system and critiques on it have been presented. Bailey's objections are of special interest, being an internal attack on the practicality of using such categories.
However, here - in the limits of the present paper - we shall not deal with the alternatives in detail but propose a new category-system that fits the setting and the work of the classroom of the course 1212.
V. A NEW REFORMATION OF THE FLANDERS CATEGORY-SYSTEM
A closer look at the original ten categories established by Flanders 5 will permit their application to the interactional situation of the course in question.
The first group consist of four categories of teacher talk with indirect influence:
1. Accept feelings - the teacher accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. - The category refers to an attitude that is both present and needed in the language practice course.
2. Praises or encourages - the teacher praises or encourages student action or behaviour. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, 'um hm?' or 'go on' are included. - Similarly to category one, this is an important and frequent situation.
3. Accepts or uses ideas of student - clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. - This is not only a frequent but a very specific situation to the language practice course.
4. Asks questions - asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer. - Frequent and important category as well.
The second group consist of three categories of teacher talk with direct influence. Here, certain modifications will have to be made.
5. Lecturing - giving facts or opinions about content or procedure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. - Lecturing is the element that is completely missing in the group work of the section, hence this category shall be left out. Another category shall be introduced instead at the appropriate place.
6. Giving directions - directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. - Because a considerable part of the work is done on computers (often interrupted and always followed by verbal comments, discussion, etc.) these directions also include all directions concerning the work on computers.
7. Criticizing or justifying authority - statements intended to change student behaviour from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference. - This sort of self-reference is not specific to the course, the category can be left out.
Two categories are established for the student talk:
8. Student talk - response - a student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement and sets limits to what the student says.
9. Student talk - initiation - talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas. - This category is one that refers to an interactive situation very specific to the course. When discussion is taking place, the students usually talk much more than the teacher and often respond to each other expressing new ideas. Category 9 shall be completed and a new category established to mark the difference between the two kinds of student talk:
9*. Student talk to teacher - initiation (the description remains the same).
1O*. Student talk to student - initiation - talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to another student.
The last and separate category is indeed necessary:
1O. Silence or confusion - pauses, short period of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.
As the computer takes a major part in the work - sometime even replaces the teacher in some sense - , one category should be added referring to verbal behaviour in connection with the computer:
11*. Student talk 'to computer' - unpredictable statements, comments by students in response/concerning the work done on computers (for example the comparative analysis of the written responses to a question given via network system). - This kind of verbal behaviour - like the students talk in general - is provoked, initiated by the teacher, still it should fall into this category to be differentiated from other kinds of verbal expression, not directly related to technical instruments.
With the modifications and adjustements the new ten categories are the following:
Teacher talk with indirect influence:
1. Accept feelings;
2. Praises or encourages;
3. Accepts or uses ideas of students;
4. Ask questions;
Teacher talk with direct influence:
5. Giving directions;
Student talk:
6. Student talk - response;
7. Student talk to teacher - initiation;
8. Student talk to student - initiation;
9. Student talk 'to computer';
---
1O. Silence or confusion.
When the tallies are entered into a ten by ten matrix they result in a graphic picture of the lesson. The matrix preserves the general time sequence of the interaction by illustrating which behaviours immediately preceded or followed others. The study of the matrix (calculation of percentages for each categories, for teacher talk and student talk and silence or confusion) permits the discovery and analysis of teaching patterns: ratios of the amount of indirect or direct influence the teacher used are determined, each focusing on a different )relationship. (Here we are not dealing with the techniques of the analysis.)
VI. ESTIMATES - (to be testified in the next semester?)
Without sufficient data I give only estimates for the different relationships - it would be interesting to adapt the interaction analysis system in the next semester course and testify the results.
1. What percentage of the class time does the teacher talk? - 3O %.
2. What percentage of the class do the students talk?
- 7O %.
3. Does the teacher use more indirect or direct influence during a lesson? - 4. Is the teacher more indirect or direct in the way he motivates and controls the class?
- The changes made in the categories, notably the fact that only one category is left for direct influence and all the four are left for the direct influence should still give the right percentage for direct and indirect teacher talk. It is not at all by accident that we got this one-to-four proportion: we are concerned with a university language course, where opposed to the traditional teacher-lecturer, the role of the teacher is much more of a dominating group member, who indirectly initiates the other members of the group. Hence, in my estimation the teacher uses twice as much indirect than direct influence in course 1212 (q3) and is much more indirect than direct in the way he motivates and controls the class (q4). Although he often uses directions, commands to help the work go on, more nuanced indirect influence is needed in most of the cases.
5. What kind of immediate feedback does the teacher give to students after they respond? - The most common immediate feedback the teacher gives is the acceptance and use of ideas of students (category 3). Because students are usually given the possibility of not only presenting their ideas, but - after having heard the teacher's and the other students' comments and opinions - developing them further, the best way to motivate them is by using their ideas: this way they can be sure it was worth telling their thoughts.
6. To what extent do students participate for extended periods of time? - They indeed participate for extended periods of time both individually, in pairs and especially in overall group activities. Here we only deal with verbal behaviour, if written work (computers) was counted, the participation of student should be even more.
7. What behaviours does the teacher use to elicit student response in the class? - He most often accepts and uses ideas of the students and ask questions.
8. To what extent are student responses which are called for by the teacher narrow, predictable ones and to what extent are students given the opportunity to bring in their own ideas? - In most of the cases the students are given the opportunity to bring in their new ideas. The narrow and predictable responses mostly refer to simple matters of the task itself, not discussional topics.
VII. FUTURE APPLICATION IN TEACHER PRACTICE
Are we dealing with language practice or teaching practice? If the latter (or both), why not to apply a systematic feedback-system?
The original Flanders' interaction analysis system was established and applied for trainees: can the members of the group not, in some sense be considered as trainees? Even if not, couldn't active language practice students be observers of the interactive process of their own group and teacher? Wouldn't that be an interesting teaching practice for both students and teacher?
L 183 F
The ANG 1212 Language Practice course was a university course for first year English majors in the spring semester of the 1995/96 academic year in Janus Pannonius University of Pecs. The course had twelve students. The meetings were held on Mondays between 9.40 a.m. and 12.10 p.m. in the Arizona Room in Szepesy Ignac street. This room is a well–lit and well–equipped place where every group–member had access to a computer.
During the first two academic years, the language practice courses are the most important courses for every English major, because they are worth three credits and their completion is essential for being able to take up certain other courses; for example: the completion of the four language practice courses is a primary condition for all literature courses.
The ANG 1212 Language Practice group was a decision–making group, because students studied there together for the same goal (which was passing the end–of–term Proficiency exam 1 and further improving their language skills), they communicated with one another both verbally and on the computer through Group Systems, they often solved together certain tasks given by the tutor, and they were more or less aware of one another`s role in the group.
1.2. The Concept of Role
Wilson and Hanna make a distinction between two kinds of roles in their book Groups in Context. Leadership and Participation in Small Groups.: the formal and the informal roles. Formal roles such as president, secretary, or chairman are titles given by the rest of the group; whereas informal roles reflect functions that each member fulfills in the group. (1990:149–150)
This study concerns itself only with the informal roles, since in the ANG 1212 Language Practice Group there was only one formal role, the role of the tutor, the others had no titles, it was the function that each member fulfilled that counted from the point of view of the group`s working. This study undertakes to briefly describe what kinds of roles appeared in the group. The author has to admit that it was hard for her to observe eleven students, and she
apologies from those who recognize themselves and think that the author classified them into the wrong category.
1.3. An Overview of the Roles Group Members had had in previous University Groups
On the first meeting on 5 February 1996 the tutor asked the students to type into the computer a short answer about what roles they had had in previous university groups.
Only few students approached the question from a functional point of view; the others gave information only about whether they had been active or passive. Six of all twelve members present felt that they had been passive in previous groups, but three of them gave themselves a functional role like observer or listener. Four members gave answers which suggested that they had been neither active nor passive but sort of in between the two, and only two students claimed that they had been unequivocally active.
During the semester, I observed that more and more members who were up till then passive volunteered to play an active role in the group, and that a seemingly passive participant can also be a useful member of the group if I look at her 2 function in the group.
2. Functional Roles in the ANG 1212 Language Practice Group during the Spring Semester of the 1995/96 Year
Benne and Sheats divide functional roles into three categories in their essay "Functional Roles of Group Members":
(1) Group task roles which give information about how a person helps a group to achieve its goals. This category has thirteen roles: initiator–contributor, information seeker, information giver, opinion seeker, opinion giver, elaborator–clarifier, coordinator, diagnostician, orienter–summarizer, energizer, procedural assistant, secretary–recorder, and evaluator–critic.
(2) Group building and maintenance roles which are responsible for creating and maintaining the cohesiveness and effectivity of a group. Eight roles are included in this second main category: supporter–encourager, harmonizer, tension releaser, compromiser, gatekeeper, feeling expresser, standard setter, and follower.
(3) Self–centered roles which describe how each individual behaves in a group. These roles are not always productive, they sometimes hinder the group`s work. This category involves eight roles: blocker, aggressor, deserter, dominator, recognition seeker, confessor, playboy/playgirl clown, and special–interest pleader.
(quoted in Wilson and Hanna, 1990:154–161)
For practical reasons, the author will keep to these three main categories, but she will change some of the roles Benne and Sheats described are within these main categories, since not all of them can be applied to ANG 1212 group members, because, first, the size of the group is different to the number of roles Benne and Sheats created; second, some of the roles reflect behaviours which the author did not find at any of the group members; and third, the functions of a few require the invention of new roles 3, since their behaviour cannot be described by means of Benne and Sheats` roles.
In this study, the author will not include her role since she spent the meetings observing other members` behaviour and she may not be able to describe her role objectively, but she will include the tutor`s role, because he was also an integral part of the group.
2.1. Group Task Roles
2.1.1. Initiator–contributor
The role of the initiator–contributor was served by
Student 1 in the group. She was the most creative member of the group, she came up with new ideas on every single meeting when she was present. Generally she was the first to react when the tutor offered the participants a choice about what they would like to do on that meeting. Although she was not the main spokesperson during discussions, she kept on creating interesting ideas and giving new directions to the discussion.
2.1.2. Information giver
According to Benne and Sheats, the role of information giver is usually shared by more group members. (quoted in Wilson and Hanna, 1990:155) It is true that in the group the author was observing were five or six students who offered useful pieces of information to the group, but they did it only once or twice. However, there was one member, Student 2, who constantly provided the group with information. Sometimes she gave also the exact source of the information, but usually she began her information–giving by saying "I have read somewhere..." Despite this fact, her pieces of information were never doubted by any member of the group. She was one of the most recognized and liked person in the group.
2.1.3. Opinion seeker
Student 3 who played the role of the opinion seeker in the group was one of the two dominant participants, but whenever she embarked on a long monologue she interrupted it twice or three–times by asking other participants` opinion in connection with the topic she was speaking about. She often asked questions like "Anita, what is your opinion?" or "Gabor, what do you think?" during the course.
Student 4 has just written a study about personal relationships in the group. One of the questions on her opinionnaire was "Who do you think would be the most suitable student to replace the tutor?" The author of this study thinks that this opinion seeker–behaviour of Student 3 makes her the most appropriate to replace the tutor if it would be needed.
2.1.4. Opinion giver
Student 4 was not an active participant in the group. She spoke up few times, and when she did so, she always gave her opinion about that she had just heard. Her most frequent expressions on the meetings of the group were: “In my opinion..." and "I think you are right/wrong." During the course, she was the student who interrupted the tutor the most often.
2.1.5. Elaborator–clarifier
The person fulfilling the role of the elaborator–clarifier has two functions: (1) elaborating or summarizing the topic the group is discussing and (2) testing ideas and understanding. (Wilson and Hanna, 1990:156) Student 5 had many functions in the group, but this role was the most characteristic of her. Usually she played this role well, but sometimes she roughly cut other members short by saying things like "Anita wanted to say that..." or "Gabor thinks that..." But if the author ignores these few mistakes, she can safely state that Student 5 was a useful member of the group.
2.1.6. Coordinator
Student 6 is an outboarder and she was always about one and a half hours late – except for two meetings. But when she arrived, she could join in the group`s work without any difficulty. The best example for her playing the coordinator role was the forth meeting when the author was giving a presentation on "Group Cultures." Student 6 missed the first half of it, but immediately after arriving she was able to ask questions about the topic, and she was the one who directed the discussions which followed the presentation. The author thinks that her quality that she was listenning and concentrating whenever any other member of the group was speaking made her to be suitable for this role.
2.1.7. Energizer
Student 7 was one of the most energetic and most optimistic members of the group. Her positive approach to work had an effect on every other participant. On the meetings she was always smiling and took pleasure in participating in the group`s work. She encouraged other students, using both verbal and nonverbal signs (the author observed that sometimes she lifted her upper lids to make another participant start speaking).
2.1.8. Secretary–recorder
Student 8 is one of the most hard–working students the author knows. During the meetings she was always busy taking notes. She remembered to do every homework. She put down in her notebook what the group were doing at every single meeting and she could recall it when someone asked her to do it.
2.1.9. Evaluator–critic
The evaluator–critic role was served by the tutor. Since he was the group leader, it was his duty to evaluate and criticize other members` opinion and ideas. But, however, he did not play this role in a dictatoric way, he gave everybody a chance to tell her opinion, even if it was contrary to his opinion. And everytime when the group had to make a dicision together, the tutor did not finalized it until each member – who wanted – told her ideas.
2.1.10 Complementizer*
The author labelled this person, Student 9, with the complementizer role, because her function was to do things which were not directly linked with the activity of the group, but it sort of comlemented it. When the tutor offered an alternative activity for two or three people, she was always the first to put up her hand. She was the member who did the most home assignments (like elaborating on a chapter from Groups in Context) in the group. During group discussions she preferred to stay outside as an observer or do an alternative task.
2.1.11 Continuity maker
Student 10 was one of the most cheerful and creative members of the group. She was not particularly active during the course, but, nevertheless, she was a very useful member, because whenever the group`s work broke off (due to lack of ideas), she came up with something new.
2.1.12 Observer*
Student 11 was the most passive member of the group. She hardly spoke during the whole course, but she was litenning and taking some notes when other people were talking. Seemingly she did not made much contribution to the group`s work, but her observations can be useful for her – and maybe for other members` – essay.
2.2 Group Building and Maintenance roles
2.2.1 Supporter–encourager
Student 3 showed valuable personal qualities in the group, because not only did she take a large part of the group`s work upon herself, but she encouraged and appriciated the other students. In the previous chapter, the author classified Student 3 as an opinion seeker, but whenever she received an answer to her question she showed some appriciation or encouragement.
2.2.2 Harmonizer
In the group there was no occasion when the members were quarrelling. But, however, some small differences of opinion did emerge. These times Student 2, the oldest and wisest student, was the one who found the solution. Usually she did it by finding the middle course between the opinions of those students who did not agree.
2.2.3 Tension releaser
Student 1 and Student 7 were cheerful and friendly participants. Most of the times they were smiling and their vivacity effected the other students as well. They together fulfilled the role of the tension releaser, since both of them has a good sense of humour which they shared with the others.
2.2.4 Compromiser
The compromiser role is similar to the harmonizer, in fact, the two roles are nearly the same. Student 6 had difficulty in arriving to the meetings in time, but when she was present, she seemed to behave like an outsider who rather made compromises between other students than taking up a position herself.
2.2.5 Gatekeeper
The gatekeeper role was fulfilled by the tutor and he played the role well. During discussions, he tried to draw everybody into the conversation, but, at the same time, he did not force those who definitely wanted to hold their tongue. And he made sure that nobody feel uncomfortable by a topic.
2.2.6 Standard setter
Student 10 always strives for the maximum and she expected the other members of ANG 1212 to do so. For instance, when the results of the Proficiency Test were posted out, this person was upset that only the passmarks were written on the sheet and not the maximum marks, because, as she said, she always wants to compare herself to the maximum.
2.2.7. Follower
Student 8 and Student 11 did not volunteer to actively take part in discussions, but they showed some positive feedback which other – more active – participants appriciated. Although Student 4 always told her opinion on the meetings, she can be included in this category from the point of view of group building and maintenance, since she always showed – with nodding or smiling – when she agreed with another participant.
Student 5 and Student 9 were both active and useful members, but the author could not evaluate them according to the roles of this second main category, because they did not contributed to maintaining the cohesiveness in the group.
2.3. Self–centered Roles
2.3.1. Blocker
The role of the blocker was fulfilled by three members in the group, but all of them blocked the group unintentionally. Student 8 is a silent and shy person, she rarely spoke on the meetings. She was not a deserter 4, she was interested in the group`s work, but she blocked the group`s activity by depriving it of her ideas (she must have had some but did not shared them with the group).
Student 2 was a different kind of blocker. She was a useful group member but she was too pedantic. She attached great importance to every small detail, kept hearing words on the tape–recorder (when the group were doing listenning comprehension) that no other member of the group heard, and on the tenth meeting she even quarrelled with the tutor about whether or not England is on a continent. (She said that England cannot be found on any of the continents which the tutor found strange.)
Student 6 was also a blocker but she – like Student 8 and Student 2 – did not do it deliberately. As the author has mentioned in the chapter about group task roles, she is an outboarder, so she could not arrive in time – except for two meetings – due to the bus service. Her constant lateness disturbed the group`s activity, but it is true that when she was present she actively participated in the group`s activity.
2.3.2. Dominator
The dominator role was played by Student 3 and Student 5 in the group. They two took the brunt of the work upon themselves, but they played this role differently. When Student 3 was playing this role, she offered everyone a chance to tell her opinion, in fact, usually she was functioning as a dominator when no one volunteered to act or speak. On the contrary, Student 5 always wanted to be in monopoly, she often interrupted others, and, what is more, she answered questions which the tutor put to other students. For example, once the tutor asked the author`s opinion about something, the author began to speak but she stopped for a moment, looking for the expression which fitted best into the context, and then Student 5 interrupted her and finished the answer.
2.3.3. All–around helper*
Student 9 was a friendly and helpful participant, everyone who had a problem could turn to her. She helped Student 5 to find employment at the IFOR–forces (she gave her telephon numbers and useful pieces of advice), she offered the other students coke (she brought a bottle of coke with herself to every meeting), and when someone asked her to do something, then not only did she help but she gave a broad smile.
2.3.4. Acquaintance maker*
Student 8 attended another Language Practice course in the autumn semester, so she was a newcomer to this group. Before joining the group, she did not know the other participants, she knew two or three people by sight at most. Getting acquainted with everyone lasted her almost a semester long.
2.3.5. Argumenter*
Student 2, as the author have mentioned in the chapter on group maintenance roles, is the oldest and wisest student. Her favourite activity seemed to be arguing – with anyone about anything. During the course, she argued not only on the meetings but also in the breaks.
2.3.6. Fun maker*
Student 1 is a nice, friendly, and funny girl. She has a good sense of humour, during the course, she was always smiling – on the meetings, in the breaks, at arriving to the meetings, and at leaving. She sometimes entertained the others with jokes.
2.3.7. Fun maker`s assistant*
Student 1 and Student 7 are close friends. During pair–works, they worked together – smiling and laughing. In the group, her most characteristic features were her witty remarks.
2.3.7. Theorist*
Student 4 is an aesthetics major, she is known of her abstract thinking. Her opinions and comments were not always perceived by the others.
2.3.9. Equality maker*
A tutor is formally above the students. But the tutor of this group wanted to make the students feel that he was not above them; he treated the students as an equal. But, however, 70 percent of the group thought that the tutor was above them. (Vote session Report, 1996:4)
3. Conclusion
This study is a novel analysis of group behaviour; it focuses on each person`s functional role according to Benne and Sheats` model.
For the author it was an intriguing task to observe her fellow–students from this aspect, but, nevertheless, she thinks that the variety of roles appeared in this group was not satisfactory. A few persons` roles were alike, and in the chapter "Group Building
and Maintenance Roles" the author found two students who she could not label with a role, because they did not show any of the behaviours in that category.
Looking back to the course, one of the author`s aims was realized (nobody failed the Proficiency exam), but the other was not, because – in the author`s opinion – eight students in this group were not enough creative.
1 The Proficiency exam is the most significant examination for every first–year English major, because students who fail it will not get the three credits for the Language Practice Course (that is: they have to repeat the course a year later).
2 In the group there were ten female and only two male members. In order that the male members not be recognized, the author refers to every group member with the personal pronoun "she" (or with its different cases: "her," "herself") throughout this study.
3 The roles which are defined by the author of this study and not by Benne and Sheats will be marked with an asterix.
4 A deserter is someone who acts indifferently in a group, merely sits there and daydream. (Wilson and Hanna, 1990:160)
During the first two academic years, the language practice courses are the most important courses for every English major, because they are worth three credits and their completion is essential for being able to take up certain other courses; for example: the completion of the four language practice courses is a primary condition for all literature courses.
The ANG 1212 Language Practice group was a decision–making group, because students studied there together for the same goal (which was passing the end–of–term Proficiency exam 1 and further improving their language skills), they communicated with one another both verbally and on the computer through Group Systems, they often solved together certain tasks given by the tutor, and they were more or less aware of one another`s role in the group.
1.2. The Concept of Role
Wilson and Hanna make a distinction between two kinds of roles in their book Groups in Context. Leadership and Participation in Small Groups.: the formal and the informal roles. Formal roles such as president, secretary, or chairman are titles given by the rest of the group; whereas informal roles reflect functions that each member fulfills in the group. (1990:149–150)
This study concerns itself only with the informal roles, since in the ANG 1212 Language Practice Group there was only one formal role, the role of the tutor, the others had no titles, it was the function that each member fulfilled that counted from the point of view of the group`s working. This study undertakes to briefly describe what kinds of roles appeared in the group. The author has to admit that it was hard for her to observe eleven students, and she
apologies from those who recognize themselves and think that the author classified them into the wrong category.
1.3. An Overview of the Roles Group Members had had in previous University Groups
On the first meeting on 5 February 1996 the tutor asked the students to type into the computer a short answer about what roles they had had in previous university groups.
Only few students approached the question from a functional point of view; the others gave information only about whether they had been active or passive. Six of all twelve members present felt that they had been passive in previous groups, but three of them gave themselves a functional role like observer or listener. Four members gave answers which suggested that they had been neither active nor passive but sort of in between the two, and only two students claimed that they had been unequivocally active.
During the semester, I observed that more and more members who were up till then passive volunteered to play an active role in the group, and that a seemingly passive participant can also be a useful member of the group if I look at her 2 function in the group.
2. Functional Roles in the ANG 1212 Language Practice Group during the Spring Semester of the 1995/96 Year
Benne and Sheats divide functional roles into three categories in their essay "Functional Roles of Group Members":
(1) Group task roles which give information about how a person helps a group to achieve its goals. This category has thirteen roles: initiator–contributor, information seeker, information giver, opinion seeker, opinion giver, elaborator–clarifier, coordinator, diagnostician, orienter–summarizer, energizer, procedural assistant, secretary–recorder, and evaluator–critic.
(2) Group building and maintenance roles which are responsible for creating and maintaining the cohesiveness and effectivity of a group. Eight roles are included in this second main category: supporter–encourager, harmonizer, tension releaser, compromiser, gatekeeper, feeling expresser, standard setter, and follower.
(3) Self–centered roles which describe how each individual behaves in a group. These roles are not always productive, they sometimes hinder the group`s work. This category involves eight roles: blocker, aggressor, deserter, dominator, recognition seeker, confessor, playboy/playgirl clown, and special–interest pleader.
(quoted in Wilson and Hanna, 1990:154–161)
For practical reasons, the author will keep to these three main categories, but she will change some of the roles Benne and Sheats described are within these main categories, since not all of them can be applied to ANG 1212 group members, because, first, the size of the group is different to the number of roles Benne and Sheats created; second, some of the roles reflect behaviours which the author did not find at any of the group members; and third, the functions of a few require the invention of new roles 3, since their behaviour cannot be described by means of Benne and Sheats` roles.
In this study, the author will not include her role since she spent the meetings observing other members` behaviour and she may not be able to describe her role objectively, but she will include the tutor`s role, because he was also an integral part of the group.
2.1. Group Task Roles
2.1.1. Initiator–contributor
The role of the initiator–contributor was served by
Student 1 in the group. She was the most creative member of the group, she came up with new ideas on every single meeting when she was present. Generally she was the first to react when the tutor offered the participants a choice about what they would like to do on that meeting. Although she was not the main spokesperson during discussions, she kept on creating interesting ideas and giving new directions to the discussion.
2.1.2. Information giver
According to Benne and Sheats, the role of information giver is usually shared by more group members. (quoted in Wilson and Hanna, 1990:155) It is true that in the group the author was observing were five or six students who offered useful pieces of information to the group, but they did it only once or twice. However, there was one member, Student 2, who constantly provided the group with information. Sometimes she gave also the exact source of the information, but usually she began her information–giving by saying "I have read somewhere..." Despite this fact, her pieces of information were never doubted by any member of the group. She was one of the most recognized and liked person in the group.
2.1.3. Opinion seeker
Student 3 who played the role of the opinion seeker in the group was one of the two dominant participants, but whenever she embarked on a long monologue she interrupted it twice or three–times by asking other participants` opinion in connection with the topic she was speaking about. She often asked questions like "Anita, what is your opinion?" or "Gabor, what do you think?" during the course.
Student 4 has just written a study about personal relationships in the group. One of the questions on her opinionnaire was "Who do you think would be the most suitable student to replace the tutor?" The author of this study thinks that this opinion seeker–behaviour of Student 3 makes her the most appropriate to replace the tutor if it would be needed.
2.1.4. Opinion giver
Student 4 was not an active participant in the group. She spoke up few times, and when she did so, she always gave her opinion about that she had just heard. Her most frequent expressions on the meetings of the group were: “In my opinion..." and "I think you are right/wrong." During the course, she was the student who interrupted the tutor the most often.
2.1.5. Elaborator–clarifier
The person fulfilling the role of the elaborator–clarifier has two functions: (1) elaborating or summarizing the topic the group is discussing and (2) testing ideas and understanding. (Wilson and Hanna, 1990:156) Student 5 had many functions in the group, but this role was the most characteristic of her. Usually she played this role well, but sometimes she roughly cut other members short by saying things like "Anita wanted to say that..." or "Gabor thinks that..." But if the author ignores these few mistakes, she can safely state that Student 5 was a useful member of the group.
2.1.6. Coordinator
Student 6 is an outboarder and she was always about one and a half hours late – except for two meetings. But when she arrived, she could join in the group`s work without any difficulty. The best example for her playing the coordinator role was the forth meeting when the author was giving a presentation on "Group Cultures." Student 6 missed the first half of it, but immediately after arriving she was able to ask questions about the topic, and she was the one who directed the discussions which followed the presentation. The author thinks that her quality that she was listenning and concentrating whenever any other member of the group was speaking made her to be suitable for this role.
2.1.7. Energizer
Student 7 was one of the most energetic and most optimistic members of the group. Her positive approach to work had an effect on every other participant. On the meetings she was always smiling and took pleasure in participating in the group`s work. She encouraged other students, using both verbal and nonverbal signs (the author observed that sometimes she lifted her upper lids to make another participant start speaking).
2.1.8. Secretary–recorder
Student 8 is one of the most hard–working students the author knows. During the meetings she was always busy taking notes. She remembered to do every homework. She put down in her notebook what the group were doing at every single meeting and she could recall it when someone asked her to do it.
2.1.9. Evaluator–critic
The evaluator–critic role was served by the tutor. Since he was the group leader, it was his duty to evaluate and criticize other members` opinion and ideas. But, however, he did not play this role in a dictatoric way, he gave everybody a chance to tell her opinion, even if it was contrary to his opinion. And everytime when the group had to make a dicision together, the tutor did not finalized it until each member – who wanted – told her ideas.
2.1.10 Complementizer*
The author labelled this person, Student 9, with the complementizer role, because her function was to do things which were not directly linked with the activity of the group, but it sort of comlemented it. When the tutor offered an alternative activity for two or three people, she was always the first to put up her hand. She was the member who did the most home assignments (like elaborating on a chapter from Groups in Context) in the group. During group discussions she preferred to stay outside as an observer or do an alternative task.
2.1.11 Continuity maker
Student 10 was one of the most cheerful and creative members of the group. She was not particularly active during the course, but, nevertheless, she was a very useful member, because whenever the group`s work broke off (due to lack of ideas), she came up with something new.
2.1.12 Observer*
Student 11 was the most passive member of the group. She hardly spoke during the whole course, but she was litenning and taking some notes when other people were talking. Seemingly she did not made much contribution to the group`s work, but her observations can be useful for her – and maybe for other members` – essay.
2.2 Group Building and Maintenance roles
2.2.1 Supporter–encourager
Student 3 showed valuable personal qualities in the group, because not only did she take a large part of the group`s work upon herself, but she encouraged and appriciated the other students. In the previous chapter, the author classified Student 3 as an opinion seeker, but whenever she received an answer to her question she showed some appriciation or encouragement.
2.2.2 Harmonizer
In the group there was no occasion when the members were quarrelling. But, however, some small differences of opinion did emerge. These times Student 2, the oldest and wisest student, was the one who found the solution. Usually she did it by finding the middle course between the opinions of those students who did not agree.
2.2.3 Tension releaser
Student 1 and Student 7 were cheerful and friendly participants. Most of the times they were smiling and their vivacity effected the other students as well. They together fulfilled the role of the tension releaser, since both of them has a good sense of humour which they shared with the others.
2.2.4 Compromiser
The compromiser role is similar to the harmonizer, in fact, the two roles are nearly the same. Student 6 had difficulty in arriving to the meetings in time, but when she was present, she seemed to behave like an outsider who rather made compromises between other students than taking up a position herself.
2.2.5 Gatekeeper
The gatekeeper role was fulfilled by the tutor and he played the role well. During discussions, he tried to draw everybody into the conversation, but, at the same time, he did not force those who definitely wanted to hold their tongue. And he made sure that nobody feel uncomfortable by a topic.
2.2.6 Standard setter
Student 10 always strives for the maximum and she expected the other members of ANG 1212 to do so. For instance, when the results of the Proficiency Test were posted out, this person was upset that only the passmarks were written on the sheet and not the maximum marks, because, as she said, she always wants to compare herself to the maximum.
2.2.7. Follower
Student 8 and Student 11 did not volunteer to actively take part in discussions, but they showed some positive feedback which other – more active – participants appriciated. Although Student 4 always told her opinion on the meetings, she can be included in this category from the point of view of group building and maintenance, since she always showed – with nodding or smiling – when she agreed with another participant.
Student 5 and Student 9 were both active and useful members, but the author could not evaluate them according to the roles of this second main category, because they did not contributed to maintaining the cohesiveness in the group.
2.3. Self–centered Roles
2.3.1. Blocker
The role of the blocker was fulfilled by three members in the group, but all of them blocked the group unintentionally. Student 8 is a silent and shy person, she rarely spoke on the meetings. She was not a deserter 4, she was interested in the group`s work, but she blocked the group`s activity by depriving it of her ideas (she must have had some but did not shared them with the group).
Student 2 was a different kind of blocker. She was a useful group member but she was too pedantic. She attached great importance to every small detail, kept hearing words on the tape–recorder (when the group were doing listenning comprehension) that no other member of the group heard, and on the tenth meeting she even quarrelled with the tutor about whether or not England is on a continent. (She said that England cannot be found on any of the continents which the tutor found strange.)
Student 6 was also a blocker but she – like Student 8 and Student 2 – did not do it deliberately. As the author has mentioned in the chapter about group task roles, she is an outboarder, so she could not arrive in time – except for two meetings – due to the bus service. Her constant lateness disturbed the group`s activity, but it is true that when she was present she actively participated in the group`s activity.
2.3.2. Dominator
The dominator role was played by Student 3 and Student 5 in the group. They two took the brunt of the work upon themselves, but they played this role differently. When Student 3 was playing this role, she offered everyone a chance to tell her opinion, in fact, usually she was functioning as a dominator when no one volunteered to act or speak. On the contrary, Student 5 always wanted to be in monopoly, she often interrupted others, and, what is more, she answered questions which the tutor put to other students. For example, once the tutor asked the author`s opinion about something, the author began to speak but she stopped for a moment, looking for the expression which fitted best into the context, and then Student 5 interrupted her and finished the answer.
2.3.3. All–around helper*
Student 9 was a friendly and helpful participant, everyone who had a problem could turn to her. She helped Student 5 to find employment at the IFOR–forces (she gave her telephon numbers and useful pieces of advice), she offered the other students coke (she brought a bottle of coke with herself to every meeting), and when someone asked her to do something, then not only did she help but she gave a broad smile.
2.3.4. Acquaintance maker*
Student 8 attended another Language Practice course in the autumn semester, so she was a newcomer to this group. Before joining the group, she did not know the other participants, she knew two or three people by sight at most. Getting acquainted with everyone lasted her almost a semester long.
2.3.5. Argumenter*
Student 2, as the author have mentioned in the chapter on group maintenance roles, is the oldest and wisest student. Her favourite activity seemed to be arguing – with anyone about anything. During the course, she argued not only on the meetings but also in the breaks.
2.3.6. Fun maker*
Student 1 is a nice, friendly, and funny girl. She has a good sense of humour, during the course, she was always smiling – on the meetings, in the breaks, at arriving to the meetings, and at leaving. She sometimes entertained the others with jokes.
2.3.7. Fun maker`s assistant*
Student 1 and Student 7 are close friends. During pair–works, they worked together – smiling and laughing. In the group, her most characteristic features were her witty remarks.
2.3.7. Theorist*
Student 4 is an aesthetics major, she is known of her abstract thinking. Her opinions and comments were not always perceived by the others.
2.3.9. Equality maker*
A tutor is formally above the students. But the tutor of this group wanted to make the students feel that he was not above them; he treated the students as an equal. But, however, 70 percent of the group thought that the tutor was above them. (Vote session Report, 1996:4)
3. Conclusion
This study is a novel analysis of group behaviour; it focuses on each person`s functional role according to Benne and Sheats` model.
For the author it was an intriguing task to observe her fellow–students from this aspect, but, nevertheless, she thinks that the variety of roles appeared in this group was not satisfactory. A few persons` roles were alike, and in the chapter "Group Building
and Maintenance Roles" the author found two students who she could not label with a role, because they did not show any of the behaviours in that category.
Looking back to the course, one of the author`s aims was realized (nobody failed the Proficiency exam), but the other was not, because – in the author`s opinion – eight students in this group were not enough creative.
1 The Proficiency exam is the most significant examination for every first–year English major, because students who fail it will not get the three credits for the Language Practice Course (that is: they have to repeat the course a year later).
2 In the group there were ten female and only two male members. In order that the male members not be recognized, the author refers to every group member with the personal pronoun "she" (or with its different cases: "her," "herself") throughout this study.
3 The roles which are defined by the author of this study and not by Benne and Sheats will be marked with an asterix.
4 A deserter is someone who acts indifferently in a group, merely sits there and daydream. (Wilson and Hanna, 1990:160)
L 174 M
In human interaction feedback plays an instrumental role. It informs the encoder about whether the data conveyed has been comprehended and what kind of reception it happens to have had and also helps to make headway. The aim of the author in this essay is to provide feedback on the 1212 Language Practice Course of József Horváth which was held in the spring session of the year 1996 in the Arizona Room in Szepesy Ignác Street. The primary concern would be to take the syllabus into the scope of the essay and to throw light upon the actual realisation of its contents within the framework of the communication acts.
The syllabus
The syllabus of the 1212 course was printed on an A-4 sized white paper in black ink, the size of the characters approximately being 12. The printed text occupied both sides of the paper and the distance between the lines conveyed an airy impression. All in all, the syllabus was well-laid out and at first glance contained the information generally relevant for course descriptions.
The syllabus contained the following sections: course description, the method and basis of evaluation, the list of required reading and basic information about the essay and the Proficiency Exam. In the following paragraphs all these parts will be subject to further investigation.
The course description informed the participants that during the classes taking place in the Arizona Room the tutor intended to place emphasis on listening and reading comprehension and on speaking and writing skills. The main motive lying behind the development of these areas was the desirability of helping students prepare for, and eventually pass, the Proficiency Exam bound to take place at the end of the term.
Not only did the facilitator set the overall goals but also he clarified them where necessary. He elaborated, among other things, on the heading ‘Speaking.’ In parenthesis notions such as brainstorming, analysing and describing caught the glance of the participants. The author believes that this special clarification and care was due to, and response for, the feedback provided by first year students to rumours of students’ loosing their speaking skills while at university. In the autumnal term first year students were exposed to predictions about deterioration of knowledge and seemed desirous of preventing this. Therefore, the tutor, having realised a need for more speaking practice, proceeded to include it in the course.
The item ‘writing’ also received additional care. In parenthesis appear notions such as group writing, proof-reading and commenting. This extension of the heading is worthy of notice in the sense that the attached expressions convey a change in the original meaning of writing. The author is of opinion that without the additional information the participants could not have got a fair picture of the task awaiting them.
The opinion that this extension was necessary is based on the controversy between the definition of writing in general and in this particular case. In general, writing is an antisocial act. Writing is done at home, in one’s own chamber or in an office. Rarely do we write in public and even if we do we do not go as far as to co-operate with others on our piece of writing (asking a teacher for advice in essay-writing is a different matter and so is writing a test). Therefore, when talking of putting ideas on paper it is more than likely that people will conceive of this act as personal or even intimate.
In the specific case of the course, however, the intention of the tutor rendered this definition untrue. He wanted participants to write in one another’s presence and to subject these pieces to the inspection of the other members. Thus, to define writing in the sense the facilitator imagined it, and would have liked the participants to imagine it as well, was imperative in order that the common theory could be confronted with the new one and in order that awareness of the prospective differences students could be raised. Had the notion not been duly defined and cast into its mould the participants would have stood no real chance of deciding whether this kind of writing suited their purposes or simply whether it was not against their liking.
Having browsed through the course description, the author approached the delicate question of evaluation. As a general rule one can utter that it is of the utmost importance for teachers and students alike to prepare a lucidly-laid out table of requirements and basis of evaluation so that students could become conscious of their obligation and teachers could thwart the flood of complaints at the end of the term about unfair grading. To omit doing so may ruin a whole course since, not knowing the prerequisites, students will engage themselves in inquires and by doing so will not be able to work efficiently on tasks assigned to them. Also, the uncertainty will result in tension which, likely as not, may well spoil the atmosphere of the grading process.
To turn our attention from the general to the particular we can hereby comment on the part of the syllabus concerning evaluation. It consists of 4 main entries which cover the basis of grading in ample detail. It becomes clear that a total of 83 points can be obtained on the basis of one’s performance in the following categories: attendance (13 marks), listening test (15), oral skills (30) and writing skills (25).
Apart from the extension of certain headings in the course description part, the distribution of points scorable also gave a sense of the importance of each domain. It was noticeable that, while only 5 points could be got for each listening assignment, fluent and accurate speakers could score as high as 30 points and good writers 25 points. Thus, not only the clarification of the main and substantial items but also the size of the reward for being good at them indicated what would constitute the framework of the course.
Next on the syllabus was the list of Required Reading. It included copied parts of a book wont to form a basis for the course. It seemed, however, that the availability was largely restricted, there being only one copy in the library and also because participants could not be certain whether enough photocopies would be made in time. Part of the list were the printouts resulting from the labour of the students during the classes and also tape materials.
The syllabus also informed the students that meeting the already stated requirements would by no means be enough to earn the credits and a grade for the course. It was the Proficiency Exam that would put an end to their effort - the syllabus contained. Being so decisive in completing the course the exam had been receiving ample attention even as early as the previous term and had been the topic of many a discussion. It was, however, evident that the information had been unprecise and unbiased, therefore the aversion of the students to the exam was not utterly well-founded. Being aware of this fact the tutor strove to present as accurate an account within the limited space as possible in order to dissolve doubts and unfair opinions. Whether he managed we will see later.
What we can see right now is the contents of the paragraph detailing the requirements of the exam. It was to be a written test consisting of listening, reading, multiple choice tests and essay writing. Students were not to be graded but rather would receive a P (pass) or F (fail). The paragraph also informed the students about the possibility of resitting the exam.
In summary, the agenda helped the students explicitly to comprehend the motives of the tutor and his expectations. The extensions were consistently attached throughout the document and the scores were adjusted in accordance with the significance of each domain.
The syllabus helped the participants in an implicit way as well. The facilitator showed, in organising the material he wanted to present, how to follow the principle of not imposing too much order on meetings in advance. He gave a general framework based on time and group size considerations but restrained himself from stating a lesson by lesson agenda. The author believes that it would have bordered on the impossible to do so because factors such as intristic interest, task difficulty and emotional involvement were meeting specific and could not be determined in advance.
The actual realisation of the syllabus
As the term drew to a close a lot of data were at the author’s disposal for the sake of comparing the document with the actual materialisation of its promises and prerequisites. In processing these data and in arriving at conclusions the author wanted to show unbiased behaviour. Therefore, the author did not attempt to create a ranking of events, praises and criticisms. He did not do so not wanting to suggest any order of importance (deeming all examples worthy of notice). Indeed, it would be erroneous to suggest in any way whatsoever the significance of conclusions for fear that the reader might create a ranking not on his own will but rather on that of the author.
To impose, however, some order upon the flow of the essay is inevitable as well as desirable. Therefore, the writer will deal with the events in accordance with the order of entries laid out in the syllabus.
To begin with the author will cast a glance at the realisation of the course description starting out with listening tasks. The listening comprehension tasks were much coveted on account of the uneasiness which sophomores stirred by regarding the listening part of last year’s Proficiency Exam monstrous and incomprehensible. These exercises, however, were long in coming and participants partook in listening exercise only at the near end of the term. Even when the operation got under way they gave an overhasty impression and it seems to the author that the anxiety of the students failed to discharge the principle of letting students have ample time between exercises of the same sort so that they could improve their skills in the task.
Much to the credit of the tutor the choice when it was done, was excellent inasmuch as both the vocabulary and the wording of the stories grabbed hold of the students’ attention being neither too easy nor too dull. The questionnaires were cunning enough to give the members a whiff of the requirements of the Proficiency Exam and, on the other hand, they dissolve misconceptions about the difficulty.
Apart from being interesting, the stories were stored on tapes of good quality. Therefore, background noises did not interfere with the message. This fact pleased the students considerably. Also, the fans of the computer screens were turned off further helping the process. What the students were not hilarious to learn was the lack of an adequate tape recorder. Those sitting farthest from the sound source considered the state of affairs unfair.
From the point of view of communication the computers and background noises created physical noise whereas the inadequacy of the sound transmitting device and the delay of the exercises evoked semantic noise inside the participants.
Having paid attention to the realisation of listening comprehension the author will contemplate the degree to which the aim of developing speaking skills was fulfilled. It seems to the writer that speaking skills were not efficiently developed. It was, however, not because of the tutor. He did everything to make participants speak. He devoted additional care to the heading and thus stressed its significance right from the beginning. Later he proceeded to bombard the groupmembers with questions and situations which provided chance after chance to speak. And yet the members did not try to speak as much as the environment would have made it possible. The reason as the writer sees it, lies in pervasive group norms whereby not only speaking but also active and apparent participation is somewhat embarrassing since other members may regard the speaker an eager beaver. This group norm did not develop within the group but rather was brought in from without and is observable in high school as well.
To the matter of speaking also belongs the acquiring of new words. This the course failed to accomplish. This omission accounts for great semantic noise which made its presence felt only after classes. It did not manifest itself in class since there was semantic noise about the essay choking other voices of discontent. This we will investigate later. All in all, new words were not taught although the extension of vocabulary may have contributed to additional fluency e.g. in describing or convincing.
The notion ‘reading’ is the next to appear in sight. This task seems to have been leniently dealt with inasmuch as no special exercise akin to reading comprehension presented itself. It is objectionable only because in the Proficiency Exam students encountered a reading comprehension part which according to Mrs. Gonzalez was devilish. Being preparatory to this very exam the course could have included assignments of this kind. In favour of the facilitator it can be said it is true that reading is best looked after by reading at home.
We have arrived now to the much cited matter of writing. Above the assumption that writing was an antisocial, private and intimate act was made. Despite this the members seemed to be troubled in no way by the presence of the others. To sweep away the seeming paradox arising from the situation and the definition given above the following reasons have been hit upon. The clarification of the heading ‘writing’ in the syllabus helped students to accustom themselves in advance to the idea of writing in the presence of the others. In addition, the fact that they were on rather friendly terms due to the fact that all but one attended to a previous course of the tutor in the autumnal term helped a lot. Therefore, a sense of intimacy developed in the group.
In addition to the question of group writing the preparing of the 15 page essay is also worthy of analysis. The length of the essay excited considerable attention. For first year students to be required to produce 15 pages in one go was frightening at best. With the disquieting length prerequisites was combined the presence of the particular importance which the tutor attached to writing. Nevertheless, these reasons would not have been on their own enough to create the fears that actually presented themselves. The author makes the presumption that these two factors combined with a third namely that there was an anomaly in the estimation of task difficulty between members and facilitator.
The group leader, of course, was aware of the different points of view and took measures to eliminate the division or at least to give every guidance to the participants. This he did by incorporating a brief summary of the main features of the essay into the syllabus leaving open the chance of further negotiations. He, in the course, strove with grace and expertise to present the essay in the light it should have been seen. He devoted classes to collecting and producing material exclusively for the essay. The author firmly believes that due to these unforeseen occasions to be devoted to the essay many a promise could not be carried out, which is by no means the flaw of the tutor.
Despite all these efforts the semantic noise became such that positively endangered the efficiency and motivation of the group. These mounting concerns occurred in steps. At first P1 (participant 1) made comments on the impossibility of preparing the essay successfully. Then P2 declared that she would not have signed up for the course had she known about the turn the course, primarily with the essay, was to take. The silence of the participants which ensued was of significance since it indicated the approval of the group. This case is typical of group communication whereby a member makes a statement and the group enforces it by not contradicting the speaker (there are other interpretations for this event, of course). In the author’s opinion the leader was unduly criticised.
Whether absolutely rightful or not the disquiet had to be done away with. The leader, after the spring break, provided more guidance and devoted even more time to helping students prepare for the essay. By doing so the tutor managed to reduce the dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, it meant the loss of an even larger proportion of the agenda’s actual realisation.
The next item to engage our attention is the list of required reading. About this the writer can write with the utmost satisfaction. The materials were made easily available, turned out to be excellently prepared and provided discussion for the course. The tape materials were at least as good as the written data and the author found them consistent with the Proficiency Exam as far as task difficulty is concerned. On top it all that the facilitator stored most of the material on computer thus making availability even easier. Therefore, fears that materials would not be available dissolved, the more so when it turned out that photocopies in the secretary’s office were in abundance.
Writing about the actual realisation of the syllabus one cannot fail to cover some aspects of the Proficiency Exam. Earlier, the author mentioned irrational emotions towards the exam and analysed the passage covering some facts about the test. Now, he would like to elaborate on what reality came to be like.
The first stage of the realisation of the exam was the course itself where students absorbed the nature of the exercises and had opportunity to practice. In order to help this process the facilitator provided assignments very similar to those in the test . The best examples are the questionnaires of the listening comprehension the questions of which gave an accurate picture of those awaiting the students. Also, the group-leader encouraged everybody to handle in short essays and paragraphs to be graded like the ones in the exam. The observations attached to these drafts were found relevant and straight to the point. This the author bases on his own experience coming from the draft he handed in. More details about the parts of the course preparatory for the exam are found in the passage dealing with the realisation of the course description.
The assignments in the course did not only prepare students for the difficulties objectively. They were instrumental in dissolving the irrational emotions such as fears and uneasiness which feelings were generated by sophomores and were based on biased information. To be confronted with the exercises meant a confrontation with reality as well which differed from the rumours greatly. That at the end of the course students were anxious still can be accounted for by the decisive nature of the exam rather than by previously mentioned exaggeration of task difficulty. This achievement was greatly attributable to the course and to the syllabus which, as if anticipating the misconceptions, provided accurated data right from the beginning.
Here, the actual event of the Proficiency Exam will not be dealt with the topic being but indirectly related to the aim of seeing the syllabus materialise. Let it suffice to say that the procedures were consistent with those stated in the syllabus.
Conclusion
Strange as it seems, no verdict has been reached so far. Neither, for that matter, will any be reached now. Whatever the author has commented upon and whatever conclusions have been arrived at the writer has worked not because some judgement was to be reached but rather because I hoped that by analysing this course our next encounter will be even more fruitful and joyous. Should we not meet under the same circumstances it must be noted that I have enjoyed the course because of its assets and despite its inadequacies.
The syllabus
The syllabus of the 1212 course was printed on an A-4 sized white paper in black ink, the size of the characters approximately being 12. The printed text occupied both sides of the paper and the distance between the lines conveyed an airy impression. All in all, the syllabus was well-laid out and at first glance contained the information generally relevant for course descriptions.
The syllabus contained the following sections: course description, the method and basis of evaluation, the list of required reading and basic information about the essay and the Proficiency Exam. In the following paragraphs all these parts will be subject to further investigation.
The course description informed the participants that during the classes taking place in the Arizona Room the tutor intended to place emphasis on listening and reading comprehension and on speaking and writing skills. The main motive lying behind the development of these areas was the desirability of helping students prepare for, and eventually pass, the Proficiency Exam bound to take place at the end of the term.
Not only did the facilitator set the overall goals but also he clarified them where necessary. He elaborated, among other things, on the heading ‘Speaking.’ In parenthesis notions such as brainstorming, analysing and describing caught the glance of the participants. The author believes that this special clarification and care was due to, and response for, the feedback provided by first year students to rumours of students’ loosing their speaking skills while at university. In the autumnal term first year students were exposed to predictions about deterioration of knowledge and seemed desirous of preventing this. Therefore, the tutor, having realised a need for more speaking practice, proceeded to include it in the course.
The item ‘writing’ also received additional care. In parenthesis appear notions such as group writing, proof-reading and commenting. This extension of the heading is worthy of notice in the sense that the attached expressions convey a change in the original meaning of writing. The author is of opinion that without the additional information the participants could not have got a fair picture of the task awaiting them.
The opinion that this extension was necessary is based on the controversy between the definition of writing in general and in this particular case. In general, writing is an antisocial act. Writing is done at home, in one’s own chamber or in an office. Rarely do we write in public and even if we do we do not go as far as to co-operate with others on our piece of writing (asking a teacher for advice in essay-writing is a different matter and so is writing a test). Therefore, when talking of putting ideas on paper it is more than likely that people will conceive of this act as personal or even intimate.
In the specific case of the course, however, the intention of the tutor rendered this definition untrue. He wanted participants to write in one another’s presence and to subject these pieces to the inspection of the other members. Thus, to define writing in the sense the facilitator imagined it, and would have liked the participants to imagine it as well, was imperative in order that the common theory could be confronted with the new one and in order that awareness of the prospective differences students could be raised. Had the notion not been duly defined and cast into its mould the participants would have stood no real chance of deciding whether this kind of writing suited their purposes or simply whether it was not against their liking.
Having browsed through the course description, the author approached the delicate question of evaluation. As a general rule one can utter that it is of the utmost importance for teachers and students alike to prepare a lucidly-laid out table of requirements and basis of evaluation so that students could become conscious of their obligation and teachers could thwart the flood of complaints at the end of the term about unfair grading. To omit doing so may ruin a whole course since, not knowing the prerequisites, students will engage themselves in inquires and by doing so will not be able to work efficiently on tasks assigned to them. Also, the uncertainty will result in tension which, likely as not, may well spoil the atmosphere of the grading process.
To turn our attention from the general to the particular we can hereby comment on the part of the syllabus concerning evaluation. It consists of 4 main entries which cover the basis of grading in ample detail. It becomes clear that a total of 83 points can be obtained on the basis of one’s performance in the following categories: attendance (13 marks), listening test (15), oral skills (30) and writing skills (25).
Apart from the extension of certain headings in the course description part, the distribution of points scorable also gave a sense of the importance of each domain. It was noticeable that, while only 5 points could be got for each listening assignment, fluent and accurate speakers could score as high as 30 points and good writers 25 points. Thus, not only the clarification of the main and substantial items but also the size of the reward for being good at them indicated what would constitute the framework of the course.
Next on the syllabus was the list of Required Reading. It included copied parts of a book wont to form a basis for the course. It seemed, however, that the availability was largely restricted, there being only one copy in the library and also because participants could not be certain whether enough photocopies would be made in time. Part of the list were the printouts resulting from the labour of the students during the classes and also tape materials.
The syllabus also informed the students that meeting the already stated requirements would by no means be enough to earn the credits and a grade for the course. It was the Proficiency Exam that would put an end to their effort - the syllabus contained. Being so decisive in completing the course the exam had been receiving ample attention even as early as the previous term and had been the topic of many a discussion. It was, however, evident that the information had been unprecise and unbiased, therefore the aversion of the students to the exam was not utterly well-founded. Being aware of this fact the tutor strove to present as accurate an account within the limited space as possible in order to dissolve doubts and unfair opinions. Whether he managed we will see later.
What we can see right now is the contents of the paragraph detailing the requirements of the exam. It was to be a written test consisting of listening, reading, multiple choice tests and essay writing. Students were not to be graded but rather would receive a P (pass) or F (fail). The paragraph also informed the students about the possibility of resitting the exam.
In summary, the agenda helped the students explicitly to comprehend the motives of the tutor and his expectations. The extensions were consistently attached throughout the document and the scores were adjusted in accordance with the significance of each domain.
The syllabus helped the participants in an implicit way as well. The facilitator showed, in organising the material he wanted to present, how to follow the principle of not imposing too much order on meetings in advance. He gave a general framework based on time and group size considerations but restrained himself from stating a lesson by lesson agenda. The author believes that it would have bordered on the impossible to do so because factors such as intristic interest, task difficulty and emotional involvement were meeting specific and could not be determined in advance.
The actual realisation of the syllabus
As the term drew to a close a lot of data were at the author’s disposal for the sake of comparing the document with the actual materialisation of its promises and prerequisites. In processing these data and in arriving at conclusions the author wanted to show unbiased behaviour. Therefore, the author did not attempt to create a ranking of events, praises and criticisms. He did not do so not wanting to suggest any order of importance (deeming all examples worthy of notice). Indeed, it would be erroneous to suggest in any way whatsoever the significance of conclusions for fear that the reader might create a ranking not on his own will but rather on that of the author.
To impose, however, some order upon the flow of the essay is inevitable as well as desirable. Therefore, the writer will deal with the events in accordance with the order of entries laid out in the syllabus.
To begin with the author will cast a glance at the realisation of the course description starting out with listening tasks. The listening comprehension tasks were much coveted on account of the uneasiness which sophomores stirred by regarding the listening part of last year’s Proficiency Exam monstrous and incomprehensible. These exercises, however, were long in coming and participants partook in listening exercise only at the near end of the term. Even when the operation got under way they gave an overhasty impression and it seems to the author that the anxiety of the students failed to discharge the principle of letting students have ample time between exercises of the same sort so that they could improve their skills in the task.
Much to the credit of the tutor the choice when it was done, was excellent inasmuch as both the vocabulary and the wording of the stories grabbed hold of the students’ attention being neither too easy nor too dull. The questionnaires were cunning enough to give the members a whiff of the requirements of the Proficiency Exam and, on the other hand, they dissolve misconceptions about the difficulty.
Apart from being interesting, the stories were stored on tapes of good quality. Therefore, background noises did not interfere with the message. This fact pleased the students considerably. Also, the fans of the computer screens were turned off further helping the process. What the students were not hilarious to learn was the lack of an adequate tape recorder. Those sitting farthest from the sound source considered the state of affairs unfair.
From the point of view of communication the computers and background noises created physical noise whereas the inadequacy of the sound transmitting device and the delay of the exercises evoked semantic noise inside the participants.
Having paid attention to the realisation of listening comprehension the author will contemplate the degree to which the aim of developing speaking skills was fulfilled. It seems to the writer that speaking skills were not efficiently developed. It was, however, not because of the tutor. He did everything to make participants speak. He devoted additional care to the heading and thus stressed its significance right from the beginning. Later he proceeded to bombard the groupmembers with questions and situations which provided chance after chance to speak. And yet the members did not try to speak as much as the environment would have made it possible. The reason as the writer sees it, lies in pervasive group norms whereby not only speaking but also active and apparent participation is somewhat embarrassing since other members may regard the speaker an eager beaver. This group norm did not develop within the group but rather was brought in from without and is observable in high school as well.
To the matter of speaking also belongs the acquiring of new words. This the course failed to accomplish. This omission accounts for great semantic noise which made its presence felt only after classes. It did not manifest itself in class since there was semantic noise about the essay choking other voices of discontent. This we will investigate later. All in all, new words were not taught although the extension of vocabulary may have contributed to additional fluency e.g. in describing or convincing.
The notion ‘reading’ is the next to appear in sight. This task seems to have been leniently dealt with inasmuch as no special exercise akin to reading comprehension presented itself. It is objectionable only because in the Proficiency Exam students encountered a reading comprehension part which according to Mrs. Gonzalez was devilish. Being preparatory to this very exam the course could have included assignments of this kind. In favour of the facilitator it can be said it is true that reading is best looked after by reading at home.
We have arrived now to the much cited matter of writing. Above the assumption that writing was an antisocial, private and intimate act was made. Despite this the members seemed to be troubled in no way by the presence of the others. To sweep away the seeming paradox arising from the situation and the definition given above the following reasons have been hit upon. The clarification of the heading ‘writing’ in the syllabus helped students to accustom themselves in advance to the idea of writing in the presence of the others. In addition, the fact that they were on rather friendly terms due to the fact that all but one attended to a previous course of the tutor in the autumnal term helped a lot. Therefore, a sense of intimacy developed in the group.
In addition to the question of group writing the preparing of the 15 page essay is also worthy of analysis. The length of the essay excited considerable attention. For first year students to be required to produce 15 pages in one go was frightening at best. With the disquieting length prerequisites was combined the presence of the particular importance which the tutor attached to writing. Nevertheless, these reasons would not have been on their own enough to create the fears that actually presented themselves. The author makes the presumption that these two factors combined with a third namely that there was an anomaly in the estimation of task difficulty between members and facilitator.
The group leader, of course, was aware of the different points of view and took measures to eliminate the division or at least to give every guidance to the participants. This he did by incorporating a brief summary of the main features of the essay into the syllabus leaving open the chance of further negotiations. He, in the course, strove with grace and expertise to present the essay in the light it should have been seen. He devoted classes to collecting and producing material exclusively for the essay. The author firmly believes that due to these unforeseen occasions to be devoted to the essay many a promise could not be carried out, which is by no means the flaw of the tutor.
Despite all these efforts the semantic noise became such that positively endangered the efficiency and motivation of the group. These mounting concerns occurred in steps. At first P1 (participant 1) made comments on the impossibility of preparing the essay successfully. Then P2 declared that she would not have signed up for the course had she known about the turn the course, primarily with the essay, was to take. The silence of the participants which ensued was of significance since it indicated the approval of the group. This case is typical of group communication whereby a member makes a statement and the group enforces it by not contradicting the speaker (there are other interpretations for this event, of course). In the author’s opinion the leader was unduly criticised.
Whether absolutely rightful or not the disquiet had to be done away with. The leader, after the spring break, provided more guidance and devoted even more time to helping students prepare for the essay. By doing so the tutor managed to reduce the dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, it meant the loss of an even larger proportion of the agenda’s actual realisation.
The next item to engage our attention is the list of required reading. About this the writer can write with the utmost satisfaction. The materials were made easily available, turned out to be excellently prepared and provided discussion for the course. The tape materials were at least as good as the written data and the author found them consistent with the Proficiency Exam as far as task difficulty is concerned. On top it all that the facilitator stored most of the material on computer thus making availability even easier. Therefore, fears that materials would not be available dissolved, the more so when it turned out that photocopies in the secretary’s office were in abundance.
Writing about the actual realisation of the syllabus one cannot fail to cover some aspects of the Proficiency Exam. Earlier, the author mentioned irrational emotions towards the exam and analysed the passage covering some facts about the test. Now, he would like to elaborate on what reality came to be like.
The first stage of the realisation of the exam was the course itself where students absorbed the nature of the exercises and had opportunity to practice. In order to help this process the facilitator provided assignments very similar to those in the test . The best examples are the questionnaires of the listening comprehension the questions of which gave an accurate picture of those awaiting the students. Also, the group-leader encouraged everybody to handle in short essays and paragraphs to be graded like the ones in the exam. The observations attached to these drafts were found relevant and straight to the point. This the author bases on his own experience coming from the draft he handed in. More details about the parts of the course preparatory for the exam are found in the passage dealing with the realisation of the course description.
The assignments in the course did not only prepare students for the difficulties objectively. They were instrumental in dissolving the irrational emotions such as fears and uneasiness which feelings were generated by sophomores and were based on biased information. To be confronted with the exercises meant a confrontation with reality as well which differed from the rumours greatly. That at the end of the course students were anxious still can be accounted for by the decisive nature of the exam rather than by previously mentioned exaggeration of task difficulty. This achievement was greatly attributable to the course and to the syllabus which, as if anticipating the misconceptions, provided accurated data right from the beginning.
Here, the actual event of the Proficiency Exam will not be dealt with the topic being but indirectly related to the aim of seeing the syllabus materialise. Let it suffice to say that the procedures were consistent with those stated in the syllabus.
Conclusion
Strange as it seems, no verdict has been reached so far. Neither, for that matter, will any be reached now. Whatever the author has commented upon and whatever conclusions have been arrived at the writer has worked not because some judgement was to be reached but rather because I hoped that by analysing this course our next encounter will be even more fruitful and joyous. Should we not meet under the same circumstances it must be noted that I have enjoyed the course because of its assets and despite its inadequacies.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)