communicative strategies by adult learners of English in their learning contexts. ..... for learning grammar, designed by Pawlak (2009) based on the theoretical.
PIOTR ROMANOWSKI
University of Warsaw, Poland
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF COMMUNICATIVE STRATEGIES AMONG ADULT LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
Abstract The aim of the present paper is to discuss the application of certain communicative strategies by adult learners of English in their learning contexts. Firstly, a review of literature devoted to taxonomies of strategies is presented. Particular attention is to be paid to Tarone’s classification of 1976 as well as Faerch and Kasper’s of 1983 as their typologies will later be used in the study conducted among adult learners in language schools in Warsaw. It is also essential to provide some background information on the methodology used to investigate language learning strategies as communicative strategies are a part of them. Additionally, different patterns in empirical research on learning strategies are in the focus of the following part of the present paper. The participants have completed a survey where they expressed their preferences regarding the repertoire of strategies. Furthermore, the respondents were exposed to six classroom situations where the use of communicative strategies was imperative. It was the author’s intention to analyze which strategies are more frequent and favoured by adult learners of English. Certain correlations were finally investigated to check what variables determine the selection of communicative strategies and whether they are used efficiently. 1. Defining communicative strategies Over the years considerable research has been done on learning strategies in second language acquisition. Numerous typologies have appeared. Tarone et al. (1976) proposed a distinction into learning, communicative, 209
production and perception strategies. On the other hand, Corder (1978: 9) differentiated communicative strategies from learning strategies. Following his way of thinking, Bialystok claimed that language strategies should be divided into learning strategies where the focus is on “the feature of learner”, and communicative strategies where “the feature of the language” becomes crucial (1983: 101). Available research discloses two tendencies in which researchers tend to examine communicative strategies. Firstly, as proposed by Tarone (1980), scholars address it from a sociolinguistic point of view, and secondly, as presented by Faerch and Kasper (1983: 65), they look at them from a psychological perspective. Supporters of the first outlook state that these strategies should be considered in the context of interaction, while supporters of the latter one are of the opinion that they are psychological, cognitive processes (Droździał-Szelest 1997: 27). All these approaches cause controversy and they show that the concept of communicative strategy is complex and it may be difficult to set forth precisely whether the learner’s goal is in fact to learn, or communicate successfully (Droździał-Szelest 1997: 27). Hence, it might seem crucial initially to define what a communicative strategy really is. According to Corder, communicative strategies are regular techniques that are used by speakers in the event of problems, which may occur while expressing the intended meaning. Every learner, who encounters such difficulties, can react in two ways. Firstly, a student may adjust the message, which he or she is trying to convey to their language abilities. Secondly, a learner can try to express a desired meaning in its full form, broadening their linguistic knowledge in different ways. MichońskaStadnik described such behaviours as resource expansion strategies (1996: 25). Following the same line of reasoning, Littlewood proposed a very similar definition stating that communicative strategies are ways which enable students to cope with a situation in which they find it difficult to express their communicative intentions due to the existence of “certain gaps in their linguistic repertoire”. Learners must thus think of alternative ways that allow them to forestall a problem (1984: 83). As reported by Faerch and Kasper (1983) communicative strategies are potentially conscious plans made by learners in order to overcome some obstacles, which may eventually disturb reaching a communicative goal. Undoubtedly, there are numerous ways of perceiving the notion of communicative strategy. In order to define them Corder (1978) used the term techniques, Tarone (1980) attempts and Faerch and Kasper plans (Faerch and Kasper 1983: 29). All definitions underlined the fact that communicative strategies are problem-oriented and are supposed to help learners facing some dilemmas, but still aiming to achieve a communicative goal. 210
2. Basic typologies of communicative strategies For the purpose of the present article three typologies of communicative strategies will be discussed briefly. Corder’s classification (1978) seems interesting as it considers a learner’s personality. Tarone (1983) and her associates put an emphasis on the social aspect of communication. Last but not least, Fearch and Kasper (1983) analyse their learners’ behaviours when these are faced with communication obstacles. 2.1 Corder’s classification According to Corder (1978: 9) learners are divided into those, who prefer to take the risk and those, who avoid it. Simultaneously, the first type of communicative strategies are evidently connected with risk avoidance, the second with risk running. Among message adjustment strategies he counted those used when a learner wants to avoid pitfalls in communication. The most extreme strategy would then involve avoiding a topic, in which a learner does not even start a conversation, because he or she feels that their language abilities are limited. Another strategy, less extreme is to abandon the message. It simply means that a learner tries to speak but after a moment gives up. When a student says something, which has a slightly different meaning than the intended one but the statement itself still falls into the topic of the conversation, he or she uses semantic avoidance. In case when a learner talks too vaguely and imprecisely but within a topic, we talk about message reduction. With regards to resource expansion strategies, in Corder’s view there is no precise hierarchy. One of the most characteristic communication behaviours is transferring from mother tongue, beginning with a direct usage of the first language and ending with translating expressions from the first language into a target language. Other expansion strategies include paraphrasing, the usage of gestures and facial expressions, or looking for help from an interlocutor (Michońska-Stadnik 1996: 25-26). 2.2 Tarone, Cohen and Dumas’ classification Tarone et al. (1976) were the first scholars who introduced a taxonomy of communicative strategies. They distinguished three overall types of strategies: communication, production and learning and stated that the strategies are expressed in the phonology, morphology, syntax and lexis of a language. They further divided communicative strategies into: 1.
Avoidance – taking place when a learner decides not to attempt to speak in the target language, when they find it difficult to express their 211
view on a topic or recall an individual word in the target language. It is further subdivided into: a) topic avoidance where a learner may either change the topic completely or respond to it in a non-verbal manner; b) message abandonment, which occurs when a learner initiates a discussion about a certain topic but then cuts it short because they find it difficult to continue and drop the subject; c) semantic avoidance; d) paraphrase, which is then categorized into: - approximation taking place when a learner uses a word, which has more or less the same meaning to the one he or she should be using because a listener will deduce what they meant from the context of their utterance; - word coinage happening when a learner tries to invent a word to substitute for the one he or she does not know; - circumlocution occurring when a learner describes or defines a specific lexical item instead of providing its name; e) appeal for assistance/ to authority when a learner asks, usually a teacher, about an unknown lexical item or a form; f) language switch – when a learner substitutes lexical items that they do not know in the target language with the ones they use in the native language (most popular in phonology, morphology, syntax and lexis). 2.
3.
212
Conscious transfer is realized either through literal translation or transfer from the native language. It is perceived as a negative phenomenon, which leads by native standards not only to unsuitable but also incorrect utterances. In phonology, it is observed when a learner transfers a sound from their mother tongue into the target language. In morphology, on the other hand, a learner may comply with the rules in their first language to form structures in the second language. In syntax, for example, a learner may transfer a native language word order to the target language, for example by using subject-verb inversion, wrong prepositions. In lexicon, however, a learner may use false friends (Tarone et al. 1983: 5). Overgeneralization is associated with putting some rules from the target language into use, in wrong forms and contexts. In morphology, a learner may, for instance, apply inappropriate rules to produce past forms of some verbs. In lexicon, a learner may use overgeneralization in a lexical item in an unsuitable way, not being aware of its lexical limitations. In syntax, a learner may form a statement with a wh-
4.
5.
6. 7.
pronoun and assume that the word order is the same as in the case of wh- questions. In phonology, a learner may employ an inappropriate rule to pronounce a new sound (Tarone et al. 1983: 8). Overelaboration is present in morphological, syntactic, phonological as well lexical domains. An example of it in morphology is a persistent usage of full forms instead of contracted forms. In syntax, a learner may follow patterns from their mother tongue and never adhere to the rules in the target language. Prefabricated patterns are regarded to be a subcategory of overgeneralization, as they exist only in syntax. A typical example of prefabricated pattern occurs when a learner says What do you doing instead? of What are you doing? (Faerch and Kasper 1983: 8-9). Mime and gestures as a strategy involves using gestures or other forms of non-verbal communication, which allows learners to be successfully understood. Epenthesis is a vowel-insertion, which occurs only in phonology. A learner uses this kind of strategy when they are not able to produce consonant clusters in the second language and instead of pronouncing them they insert schwa between consonants, especially to the interior of the word, for instance /sətəreɪ/ for stray /streɪ/ or /filəm/ for film /fɪlm/.
It can be observed that to a great extent this classification coincides with the classification proposed by Corder with the exception that it is more complex (Michońska-Stadnik 1996: 26-27). 2.3 Faerch and Kasper’s classification The taxonomy, which was introduced by Faerch and Kasper (1983) included two main groups of strategies referred to as reduction strategies and achievement strategies. Reduction strategies were further divided into two subgroups. The distinction was as follows: 1.
2.
Formal reduction strategies are observed when a learner uses simplified linguistic forms, because he or she has not mastered correct language forms. Students usually employ such strategies for two reasons, firstly because they want to avoid making mistakes with a more complex linguistic form, secondly because they need to improve the flow of conversation and make a better impression on the interlocutor (Faerch & Kasper 1983: 40). Functional reduction strategies where a learner limits their communicative goal in order to avoid a linguistic problem. They may appear 213
3.
both at the planning phase as well as at the execution phase. As in the case of Corder’s classification, Faerch and Kasper mention avoiding a topic and meaning replacement. Achievement strategies are used when a learner tries to resolve a communication problem by broadening one’s skills. – code-switching: a learner switches between the two or more languages; – interlingual transfer; – inter-intralingual transfer; – foreignization: a literal translation of a word from a native language into a target one; – interlanguage based strategies, which are categorized into: a) generalization: it occurs when a learner does not know a specific word and therefore decides to use a term belonging to a broad category; b) circumlocution: it occurs when a learner describes a term; c) word coinage: it occurs when a learner invents a word or replaces a foreign term with words, which are known to him; d) exemplification: it occurs when a learner does not provide a general term but uses an example. – cooperation strategies: they are usually used when a learner asks for help from the interlocutor; – non-linguistic strategies: mimic, gestures, sounds imitation.
3. Methodology of research into learners’ strategies Numerous doubts have arisen in some recent years as to whether strategies should be perceived as individual factors, because they constitute the elements of the learning process and not the attributes of learners, such as: motivation, age, language abilities, etc. However, most linguists support the belief that using strategies is one of the most important variables, which influences the pace of acquiring a foreign language and the progress achieved (Romanowski 2005: 220). With the time researchers started paying more attention to the relations between the usage of strategies and individual variables (gender, motivation, cognition styles) and contextual ones (culture, educational context, the language taught, etc.), as well as between the quantity and quality of strategic acts and the level of mastering the language. From the very beginning the research into language learning strategies was motivated by the willingness to increase the effectiveness of the learning process. 214
The next key area of interest was for scholars to determine how effective different forms of strategic training were, which was later reflected in a great deal of research projects conducted, for instance, by Chamot in 2004, Dörnyei, in 2005, Rubin in 2007. Along with the evolution of aims and directions of research into language learning strategies, changes in the methodology appeared. They related mostly to the improvement of instruments, which are used to collect data, to the reduction of limitations in their application, to experimenting with some possible new ways of identifying strategies, to the improvement of examination procedure, or to applying more advanced statistical tools. In order to discover more about language learning strategies as well as their application and usefulness scholars utilized numerous tools and instruments, which will be discussed next. 3.1 Self-report questionnaires The kind of questionnaires, in which learners describe the strategies they use are the most common. The basic advantages of using questionnaires is their effectiveness and efficiency. They can be conducted quickly and on a big sample. This way, questionnaires allow to gather a great deal of information, which would be more difficult and time-consuming to collect with the usage of a different tool. The analysis of collected answers seems easier as well. On the other hand, some risks and drawbacks may be identified. As Chamot (2004: 15) states the surveyed may omit some strategies they have used previously, because they do not remember them, may point to the strategies they do not use, choose the wrong ones simply because they do not understand the strategy descriptions included in the questionnaire. The most popular type of questionnaire was proposed by Oxford (1990) under the name of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). It is composed of six parts, which correspond to the classification proposed by Oxford – memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. The respondents are asked to determine the frequency of given strategies according to Likert’s scale, in which 1 means that a provided answer in not applicable and 5 means that it is always or almost always true. Next an arithmetic mean is calculated for every category. The results of 3.5 and higher are perceived as high rates of LLS’ usage, the results which fluctuate between 2.5 and 3.4 as average, and everything below that is regarded as low (Oxford 1990). This instrument was subjected to standardization and successfully used in empirical research, not only to determine what kind of strategies learners tend to apply, but also to observe what the relation between their usage and different leaning styles, gender, language proficiency is (Pawlak 2009: 68). 215
Notwithstanding, much criticism has arisen in recent years over the inventory and hence other options have been put forward. One of the most recently developed instruments is a questionnaire called Language Strategy Use Inventory and Index (LSUII), proposed by Cohen and Chi (2002). It is a fairly thorough view on language learning strategies and its aim is to increase learners’ awareness. Strategies are interlinked with listening, speaking, reading, writing skills as well as with translating and the knowledge of vocabulary. There have been some other instruments developed for the identification of strategies in learners, such as: Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) – a questionnaire evaluating learners’ metacognitive awareness introduced by Vandergrift et al. (2006) and an instrument, which identified strategies for learning grammar, designed by Pawlak (2009) based on the theoretical model proposed by Oxford, Rang Lee and Park (2007), or Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc) invented by Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt (2006), which refers to the ability of engaging respondents actively in the process of learning. All these new and innovative research tools were developed in accordance with individual subsystems and skills. They offer valuable information about learners’ approach and provide evidence that knowledge about strategies has improved. 3.2 Interviews One of the most common ways of identifying the success of a strategy is an interview (Naiman et al. 1978). The interviews’ asset in comparison with questionnaires is that they allow to collect more valuable and ampler data. Respondents may answer questions more eagerly, they may give some comments, be asked to clarify or give an example and, more importantly, they have to answer the questions as leaving empty blanks is not possible. The basic shortcoming of interviews is that they are time-consuming, which means that the number of interviewees, who may not be able to recall every strategy they have ever used, is limited. The most common type of interview is a semi-structured interview, in which a learner answers questions previously set out or related to particular clues, and is encouraged to elaborate on some of them by providing detailed information. Another type of interview is a stimulated recall interview, in which interviewees are videotaped. The video is then shown to them and they are asked questions about the strategies, which they have undertaken. According to White, Schramm, Chamot (2007) interviews may become one of the most important tools for labeling strategies because they 216
enable a thorough understanding of when to apply them, depending on cultural, contextual and individual factors. 3.3 Observations Observations were commonly used to describe good language learners (Rubin 1975, Naiman et al. 1978). That said, most scholars found them fairly useless, because they do not provide an insight into the learners’ minds. Moreover, even if some strategies are observable, their taxonomy and evaluation requires subjective and sometimes erroneous evaluations by the observer. Due to the lack of time an observer is not capable of noting all actions, which are taken by learners and the fact that teachers and students are videotaped may influence their behaviour on camera. Nonetheless, it does not mean that observations are entirely useless in research into strategies. According to Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985) observations hold true in the case of young children, whose behaviours faithfully reflect mental processes. Macaro (2001) states that observations may be a useful tool for teachers, who try to specify how their students approach different tasks (by planning, using a dictionary, asking a friend, etc.). Despite these unquestioned advantages, observations play a limited role in identifying strategies and should only provide amplifying information. 3.4 Think-aloud protocol According to White, Schramm and Chamot (2007) think-aloud protocol is one of the most efficient techniques of gathering information about language learning strategies. It constitutes the most important methodological achievement in empirical research. Learners are asked to share their thoughts while doing a task, their remarks are recorded and analyzed. The person carrying out research may ask additional questions during the procedure or concentrate on specific parts of an interview after it is over. Think-aloud protocols enable researchers to observe learners’ mental processes, which is not possible with the application of the tools mentioned before. It is essential that these protocols not only provide information whether a learner uses strategies, but more importantly what kind of processes are triggered when a learner decides for such an approach. Think-aloud protocols have been successfully used in numerous research projects (Anderson 1991, Chamot and El-Dinary 1999, Afflerbach 2000). A researcher, who uses think-aloud protocols has to remember that this kind of collecting data is very challenging, because mistakes, which may occur at the stage of preparing or conducting a procedure and in the analysis of recordings may significantly diminish the value of gathered 217
data. White, Schramm and Chamot (2007) created some basic rules for applying think-aloud protocols. First of all, learners should be given examples, be able to practise a strategy and be given some clues. Secondly, they should reflect on the situations, which take place in the classroom. In the analysis researchers have to take into account learners’ spoken language (intonation, tempo, pauses), non-verbal gestures (indicating, gestures) and learners behaviours (highlighting, making notes). Needless to say, such an analysis requires video recording and in some cases supplementation by observations. 4. Types of studies Scholars use different patterns in empirical research on learning strategies. Their choice usually depends on the aim of research project. In other words, they plan and conduct research, whose aim is to identify, characterize and classify learning strategies There are five main types of research on learning strategies: descriptive studies, correlational studies, interventionist studies, case study and action research. 4.1 Descriptive studies Their aim is to describe the strategies, which are used by a given group of learners and their main motivation is to identify the strategic activities, evaluation of its usefulness or an attempt to create a coherent taxonomy. This type of methodology was used in the research on good language learners by Rubin (1975). Such studies may be applied to describe all strategies and strategies used in learning a particular ability or skill. Descriptive methodology can be used to compare different groups of learners according to the size of the group and the way of using strategies (Pawlak 2009: 74-75). 4.2 Correlational studies They are mostly used to identify factors, which influence the usage of strategies and relation, occurring between their application and the level of English. They may show that the usage of learning strategies pivots on the age, motivation, gender, personality, learning style, previous experience with learning, nationality and culture, educational context. Operationalization of variables is crucial for correlational studies. Numerous classifycations and instruments used to examine strategies makes it difficult to assess the frequency of learning strategies. Similar problems occur when the variables are measured, because scholars may invoke different definitions, classification or ways to rate motivation, determine the style of learning. The results 218
obtained from correlational studies are typically far more valuable when strategies in use are identified with different instruments for some time, so the diagnosis of language abilities would be connected to curriculum. 4.3 Interventionist studies The main aim of interventionist studies is to evaluate the effectiveness of strategy training, which can focus on teaching specific strategies in order to help students overcome some problems, or may be limited to strategic actions taken for a specific task, such as vocabulary learning (Pawlak 2009: 76). Interventionist studies usually require the usage of quantitative methodlogy. However, the usage of qualitative methodology in the form of interviews, journals, think-aloud protocols allows not only to determine how often certain strategies are applied but the way the strategies are related to one another and how useful they are (White, Schramm and Chamot 2007). 4.4 Case studies They are connected to research on an element of a bigger system. The research may focus on one person or a group of people, e.g. a language class, school or even a specific community. Case studies are primarily based on quantitative methodology and data is collected by means of different instruments, the most important being interviews, observations, journals and diaries, the analysis of documents as well as written and oral utterances. A case study is not often applied to research on language learning strategies. That said, it has a great potential as it allows to capture an individual, conceptual and dynamic dimension of strategies and it helps to understand the processes which occur in a learner’s mind, factors which influence the usage of strategies and their influence on effectiveness better. This kind of study can be used for different purposes, starting from identifying, describing, classifying strategies, through their influence on progress in learning a language and ending with the evaluation of the strategy training. 4.5 Action research The research on language learning strategies has always been closely connected to practice, because the results normally constitute an important source of information for teachers and students. They also allow for the modification of methods of teaching and pose an impulse to conduct a strategic training. Such aims are achieved through the so-called action research, which is conducted by teachers in order to understand a specific educational situation and to increase the effectiveness of the teaching 219
methods. Typically, action research has a qualitative nature, but sometimes the usage of quantitative methodology is necessary, because only then will researchers be able to identify the changes in the frequency of certain strategies and the extent of mastering given linguistic material. 5. The study 5.1 The participants The aim of the study is to discuss and evaluate the results of a survey administered among adult learners of three language schools based in Warsaw. They were asked questions about their English language learning and the application of communicative strategies. 131 learners completed the questionnaire distributed from October to November 2015. It was filled in by randomly selected learners, who voluntarily agreed to take part in the study during coffee breaks, which they usually have in-between the classes. They normally study English twice a week in two 90-minute slots. There is a 10-minute break for refreshments in the middle of each slot. The respondents assessed their language level using the scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (A1-C2). Moreover, this was simplified due to the fact that every year the learners are assigned to groups on the basis of an entrance test reflecting their overall command of English. The test consists of two parts, where in the first part the knowledge of structures and vocabulary is checked, whereas in the second part the level of the four main skills can be clearly verified. There are 72 female respondents and 59 male respondents, all between the ages of 28-59. The majority of them have been learning English for a few years in the same school, however some of them are newcomers, also with a break in education. All the participants are employed full-time in local companies and institutions. Most of the learners (76%) stated that they are externally motivated by their employers. Only 24% of respondents declared their willingness to attend the English language course either for curiosity or to meet new people and spend the time outside. Length of studying English (in years)
220
LEVELS (CEFR) A1
A2
B1
Total
B2
C1
C2
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
1-2
3
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
3-4
2
0
5
4
7
5
5
4
1
1
0
0
20
14
5-6
0
1
5
9
10
4
7
8
5
5
3
2
30
29
7-8
0
0
0
0
7
1
3
5
2
3
4
1
16
10
Total
5
3
12
15
25
12
15
17
8
9
7
3
72
59
Table 1. The participants
5.2 The research tools and procedure The general goal of the study was to determine which communicative strategies are the most popular among the adult learners. To begin with, the respondents were asked to rank the frequency of applying nine communicative strategies (see Appendix 1), namely: a. Topic avoidance; b. Paraphrasing (e.g. using generalization, circumlocution, word coinage, exemplification; c. Using synonyms and antonyms; d. Conscious transfer in the form of creating one’s own words, when a learner does not know the correct terms (e.g. by pronouncing Polish words with an English accent, adding English morphemes to Polish terms); e. Language switch – using words from Polish; f. Addressing the teacher for assistance; g. Asking classmates; h. Using non-verbal communication (miming, gestures, facial expressions); i. Using strategies, which help them gain some time, such as language fillers, repetitions, etc. The strategies were assessed in line with a 5-point Likert scale, where the response categories were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
never or almost never rarely sometimes usually always or almost always
Afterwards, the learners were asked to rank the usefulness of the abovementioned nine communicative strategies where one (1) meant the most useful strategy and nine (9) signifying the least helpful one (see Appendix 2). Lastly, it was possible to search for correlations between the afore221
mentioned strategies and six described situations. The situations are labeled as typical of foreign language classes. The learners’ task was to select the strategies from the available options and decide which one(s) they would employ in a particular situation (see Appendix 3). The six classroom situations were as follows: SITUATION 1 You do not understand a single word in a listening task. What do you do? Who do you ask for help? Do you leave the task undone? SITUATION 2 Your teacher shows you pictures with different jobs and asks you to name them in English. You are not sure about the English equivalents. What do you do? SITUATION 3 The teacher writes down some names of dishes on the blackboard. You are asked to explain what they are, where they can be eaten, etc. You encounter problems with providing the answer as you are not familiar with the vocabulary needed to handle the task. What do you do? SITUATION 4 You read an article about eating healthily, but you do not understand one of the paragraphs. The teacher asks you to summarize the text. What do you do? SITUATION 5 You are asked to act out a role of a patient at the doctor’s surgery and describe the symptoms, e.g. fever, a sore throat, a headache, but it causes difficulty. What do you do? SITUATION 6 The teacher asks you to talk about ‘the greenhouse effect” for at least three minutes, but after one minute you do not know what else to say. What do you do? Obviously, for each situation a particular set of communicative strategies could have been suggested to the learners for clarification, however it was decided that the students would select them themselves in order to create a more reliable picture of the study. In this way, it was possible to see which strategies are more frequently applied as the learners’ responses were definitely spontaneous. Furthermore, it was the author’s intention to provide 222
the results of the study, which were not interfered into by anyone so that the general outlook was neither blurred nor biased. 5.3 The results and discussion It seems crucial to divide the discussion based on the study results into two integral sections as in the first part of the study the participants were only surveyed about the application of communicative strategies according to their own perceptions related to the aforementioned strategies. Part two of the present analysis may serve as a more reliable source of information, for it is related to a number of situations where learners decide about their preferences and frequency in terms of the application of communicative strategies in real learning contexts. 5.3.1 Learners’ preferences in the choice of communicative strategies In the first part of the study, the surveyed learners were asked about the usefulness of nine communicative strategies in line with their beliefs. They ordered the strategies according to how frequently they apply them. As a result 1,179 answers were recorded (9 strategies x 131 learners). Learners were instructed to rank all the strategies, hence 2 or more strategies could be marked as used ‘always’, ‘rarely’, ‘never’, etc. This sort of calculation allowed to achieve a reliable score in terms of popularity for particular communicative strategies. It can be observed that after comparing all the results, the learners indicate ‘language switch’ and ‘conscious transfer’ as the most helpful strategies. The third and fourth most useful strategies are undoubtedly ‘topic avoidance’ and ‘paraphrasing’. The strategies, which obtained middle scores in popularity were ‘using synonyms and antonyms’ as well as ‘asking classmates for help’. The least frequently applied communicative strategies among the surveyed adult learners were ‘language fillers’, ‘non-verbal communication’ and ‘addressing the teacher for assistance’. One might wonder why such strategies have been indicated by the respondents. There are many factors, which influence the choice of strategies. There are strategies, which are more popular and those, which are hardly ever used. A learner’s language proficiency is a potentially influential factor in the choice of communicative strategies. It is found that “learners with different target language proficiency levels drew upon different sources of knowledge to solve their communication problems” (Chen, 1990: 174). Generally speaking, high language proficiency students are more likely to resort to linguistic knowledge to convey meaning and they are able to select appropriate and effective strategies for interaction. In comparison, low language profi223
ciency students tend to rely on knowledge-based or conceptual-based strategies and to call on abandonment strategies. Accordingly ‘language switch’ and ‘conscious transfer’ are said to be frequently applied by highly advanced students. As can be observed in Table 1, a high proportion of students are between the levels of B1 and C2. Moreover, according to their declarations they have been learning English for more than 4 years. For ‘topic avoidance’ a good command of the language is not required whereas for ‘paraphrasing’ a very good knowledge of structures is essential. ‘Using synonyms and antonyms’ as well as ‘asking classmates for help’ are the strategies, which are normally used by the students of lower levels. They are regarded to be the first strategies employed by learners as no knowledge of sophisticated language is necessary. Last but not least, ‘language fillers’, ‘non-verbal communication’ and ‘addressing the teacher for assistance’ were marked as the least popular communicative strategies applied among the subjects of the present study. As they are all adult learners ‘addressing the teacher for assistance’ is not the type of strategy usually selected as it is more associated with adolescents and children. Intermediate or advanced learners are probably more familiar with ‘language fillers’ and know how to apply them easily in certain contexts. ‘Non-verbal communication’ turned out to be less popular, which derives from the fact that the learners feel confident in English as they have plenty of conversational opportunities outside of the classroom. It is noteworthy that one might expect more outgoing, talkative, mature, well-travelled individuals to select more appropriate strategies and to use more co-operative strategies than less mature, less well-travelled, shyer individuals. It should also be emphasized that in the classroom learners seem to be less likely to use communicative strategies than in real communicative situations outside the classroom. As can be observed there are more factors affecting the preferences for strategy choice than just language proficiency, age or learning context. Perhaps, it would be interesting to take a closer look at the gender distribution and how it correlates with the communicative choices. Motivation is said to have a major impact on the number of adopted communicative strategies and the frequency of their use (McIntyre and Noels 1996). Also, the length of study as well as prior contact with the language and other languages previously learnt trigger the use of particular communicative strategies. Even the teacher and their particular choice of methodology in the classroom might be held responsible for the strategies, which learners will use in a particular moment. The participants in this study seem to prefer reduction strategies reflected in Faerch and Kasper’s taxonomy of 1983. This finding actually 224
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
1. never or almost never 2. rarely
i. language fillers,…
g. Asking classmates
f.Addressing the…
e. Language switch
d. Conscious transfer
b. Paraphrasing
a. Topic avoidance
3. sometimes 4. usually
Figure 1. The popularity of communicative strategies
echoes Bialystok’s report (1990) that foreign language learners are inclined to utilize familiar words rather than risking unfamiliar ones. The results are also in line with another assumption that most adult learners favour to employ message reduction and alternation strategies. More specifically, students declared their preference to use well-known words or simple expressions to communicate, rather than give up when they have difficulties conveying meaning in authentic contexts. According to their initial statement they attempt to make a good impression and try to enjoy the process of oral communication. In addition, the students often utilize gestures to help get the meaning across and eye contact to attract the attention of their listeners. Moreover, the students’ linguistic competence seems insufficient, especially in cases of those who perceive their proficiency as low, leading them to seek alternative ways to convey meaning. While struggling to cope with communication problems, they pay less attention to the problem of accuracy. However, it is worth noting that most of them declare that they do not abandon the many attempts to communicate, indicating a strong intention to achieve communication goals and an impetus that favours their future progress.
225
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Situation 6 Situation 5 Situation 4 Situation 3 Situation 2 Situation 1
Figure 2. Strategy match
5.3.2 The choice of communicative strategies in real contexts The aim of this section is to briefly discuss how the learners performed in the communicative situations they had to face and what strategies were used. The findings exhibited in Table 2 reveal that the learners used the selected communicative strategies moderately (M = 15.7074; SD = 10.03577). Comparing the mean in nine categories, it becomes clear that ‘conscious transfer’ and ‘asking classmates’ have the highest means – 27.66667 and 26.2 respectively followed by ‘addressing the teacher for assistance’ and ‘asking the classmates’. On the contrary, ‘using synonyms and antonyms’, ‘using non-verbal communication’ and ‘language fillers’ have the lowest means (5.5; 7; 8) preceded by ‘paraphrasing’ and ‘topic avoidance’ categorized as the communicative strategies with an average popularity (13.83333; 9.66667). With regards to the results obtained for the Standard Deviation (SD), a low Standard Deviation is observed in case of the data points close to the Mean of the set (CS ranked as 4, 5, 6). On the other hand, when we analyze the data points spread out over a wider range of values (CS ranked as 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9), a high Standard Deviation is 226
noticed. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that the dispersion of a set of data values is fairly moderate. Ultimately, on the basis of the calculations, it was fairly simple to rank the strategies in terms of frequency of their occurrence or popularity. Communicative Strategies
Mean (M)
Standard Deviation (SD)
Rank
Conscious transfer
27.66667
13.17067
1
Language switch
26.2
17.42699
2
Addressing the teacher for assistance
22.83333
11.95687
3
Asking classmates
20.66667
17.35127
4
Paraphrasing
13.83333
7.08284
5
Topic avoidance
9.66667
9.50088
6
Language fillers
8
4.38178
7
Using non-verbal communication
7
5.51362
8
Using synonyms and antonyms
5.5
3.937
9
Overall CS
15.7074
10.03577
Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation and Rank of Communicative Strategy Use
Figure 2 represents how certain communicative strategies matched the selected situations. The findings imply that overall the students used ‘conscious transfer’ in most of the situations – the highest values refer to situations 3–6 in this case. Another most frequently used communicative strategy is ‘language switch’ with the highest values for situations 2–5. It seems that in the situations provided as examples, the respondents also frequently applied ‘addressing the teacher for assistance’ and ‘asking the classmates’ although when compared to the initial declarations on the communicative strategy preferences these two choices were less favoured. ‘Addressing the teacher for assistance’ scored very highly in situation 1. ‘Paraphrasing’ and ‘topic avoidance’ were the two strategies that followed. The low value for ‘paraphrasing’ may indicate that the strategy is only used by those learners with a lower proficiency level, hence it is not wellrepresented. It was not used at all in case of situation 1. The last three strategies: ‘using synonyms and antonyms’, ‘using non-verbal communica227
tion’ and ‘language fillers’ were applied, among others, in situation 4 with relatively high values. 5.4 Pedagogical implications A number of implications arise from the present study’s findings. First of all, teachers should create situations that encourage students to produce oral language. Mere exposure to target language may not be sufficient for fluency improvement. As Swain (2000: 99) proposes, teachers should motivate learners to process language more deeply and with more mental effort. In the process of producing output a learner’s knowledge of L2 is tested and the process of verbalizing concrete meanings will gradually form a propensity towards using English for communication. Secondly, communication strategies should be introduced to students and their use has to be encouraged. Thirdly, it would be ideal if learners were exposed to extra learning for communication outside of the classroom hours (Rubin 1975). As a result, they could try every means to get their message across, learn from communication, and strive to master the language. Conclusions The surveyed employed a number of communicative strategies to deal with the situations described in the present study. Reduction strategies and achievement strategies are the most frequently selected ones, which simply re-confirms earlier conducted similar investigations. At the beginning, it should be highlighted that since the survey was distributed among quite a big group of learners in three different locations (language schools), the results conspicuously indicate what kind of preferences the students have in terms of communicative strategies. Hence, they can be generalized as the research sample is reliable in terms of its size. It can be further reasoned that congruent findings would appear in other educational contexts. However, as the survey gives an outline of the use of communicative strategies, long-term and detailed research would be beneficial, too. It is also crucial to point out some typical reactions and behaviours observed among the learners who agreed to voluntarily complete the questionnaire. First of all, it should be emphasized that when learners recognize that their message is not understood correctly or when they encounter problems with expressing something in a foreign language, they look for supplementary ways to avoid such linguistic restrictions. Therefore, communicative strategies may be treated as a means which supports the aim of reaching a communicative goal. Essentially they apply 228
the same strategies they find the most useful. More often the learners claim that they employ them ‘usually’ or ‘sometimes’. In general, the selection of particular communicative strategies does not always lead to the development of the learner’s linguistic system, in particular, when students use reduction strategies (for example, when they switch from more complex sentences to simple ones) or when they avoid the topic. If the students use such strategies too frequently, it may have a negative impact on their language learning and will lead to fossilization. However, the results of the survey show the respondents are more likely to use strategies, which actually involve speaking in the second language instead of using their mother tongue and strategies, which allow them to keep the conversation going and at the same time support learner’s autonomy. Strategies, which resort to the usage of the first language may be useful in the classroom while speaking with other students and the teacher, but they will not be helpful while speaking to a foreigner. Of course, the present study does not substantially affect the classification of communicative strategies. The survey could be further conducted in other language schools and supplemented by other tools. It would be beneficial to enrich it with some qualitative research tools, such as observations and action research. Furthermore, it would be interesting to carry out continuous research on the same sample to achieve more multi-faceted and optimized results. Apart from learners’ gender, motivation, some psychosocial factors could be added, i.e. their cultural background or their teacher’s methodology. By nature, communicative strategies are interactive and dynamic techniques, which are subjected to constant change in the process of learning. The research on communicative strategies allows us to understand better and describe the development of interlanguage and it may have an influence on acquiring a strategic competence, and in long-term increasing the efficiency of learning and teaching English. Bibliography AFFLREBACH P., 2000, “Verbal reports and protocol analysis”, in KAMIL M.L., MOSENTHAL P.B., PEARSON P. D. & BARR R., (eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume III, p. 163-179, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum. ANDERSON J. R., 1991, “Is human cognition adaptive”, in The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 14, p. 471-484. BIALYSTOK E., 1983, “Some Factors in the Selection and Impletion of Communication Strategies”, in FAERCH C. and KASPER G., (eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, London, Longman.
229
BIALYSTOK E., 1990, Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second Language Use, Oxford, Basil Blackwell. CHAMOT A. U., EL-DINARY P. B., 1999, “Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms”, in The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), p. 319-341. CHAMOT A. U., 2004, “Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching”, in Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 1/1, p.14-26. CHEN S. Q., 1990, “A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners”, in Language Learning, 40 (2), p. 155-187. CHESTERFIELD R. and CHESTERFIELD K. B., 1985, “Natural order in children’s use of second language learning strategies”, in Applied Linguistics 6/1, p. 45-59. CORDER S. P. 1978, “Language Learner Language”, in RICHARDS J. C. (ed.), Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches, Rowley, MA, Newbury House. DROŹDZIAŁ-SZELEST K., 1997. Language learning strategies in the process of acquiring a foreign language, Poznań, Motivex. FAERCH C. and KASPER G., (eds.), 1983, Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, London, Longman. LITTLEWOOD W., 1984, Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MACARO E., 2001, Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms, London, Continuum. MACINTYRE P. D. and NOELS K. A.,1996, “Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of language learning strategies”, in Foreign Language Annals, 29, p. 272-286. MICHOŃSKA-STADNIK A., 1996, Strategie uczenia się i autonomia ucznia w warunkach szkolnych, Wrocław, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. NAIMAN N., et al., 1978, The good language learner, Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). OXFORD R. L., 1990, Language learning strategies, Boston, Heinle & Heinle. OXFORD R. L., RANG LEE K., PARK G., 2007, “L2 Grammar Strategies: the Second Cinderella and beyond”, in COHEN A.D. and MACARO E., (eds.), Language Learner Strategies, p. 117-139. PAWLAK M., (ed.), 2009, Metody badań w językoznawstwie stosowanym [Wydanie tematyczne czasopisma Neofilolog 32], Poznań, Polskie Towarzystwo Neofilologiczne, p. 67-85. ROMANOWSKI P., 2005, “Vocabulary Learning Strategies”, in Papers on Language, Culture and Literature 2, Prace Naukowo Dydaktyczne PWSZ w Krośnie, Vol. 19, p. 219-227.
230
RUBIN J., 1975, “What the "Good Language Learner” can teach us?”, in TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), p. 41-51. SWAIN M., 2000, “The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediation acquisition through collaborative dialogue”, in LANTOLF J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 97-114. TARONE E., COHEN A. and DUMAS G., 1976, “A Closer Look at Some Interlanguage Terminology: a Framework for Communication Strategies”, in FAERCH C. and KASPER G., (eds.), Strategies in Interlangauge Communication, London, Longman. TARONE E., 1980, “Communication strategies, Foreigner Talk and Repair in Interlanguage”, in Language Learning, Vol. 30, p. 417-431. TSENG W.-T., DÖRNEYI Z., and SCHMITT N., 2006, “A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition”, in Applied Linguistics, 27/1, p. 78-102. VANDERGRIFT L. et al.H., 2006, “The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and Validation”, in Language Learning, 56(3), p. 431-462. WHITE C., SCHRAMM K., CHAMOT A., 2007, “Research methods in strategy research: re-examining the textbook”, in COHEN A. D. and MACARO E., (eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press p. 93-116.
231
Appendix 1 A survey on the popularity of Communicative Strategies 1. What is your age? […] 2. What is your gender? […] 2. How long have you been learning English? […] 4. What is your language level according to CEFR? […] 5. What is your employment status? […] 6. Where does your motivation come from? a/ I am internally motivated – I am eager to learn, I am curious about English, etc. b/ I am motivated by my employer – I will advance on the career ladder if I complete the course successfully 7. Rank the frequency of using the following communicative strategies (1: never or almost never; 5: always or almost always) Communicative Strategies a. Topic avoidance; b. Paraphrasing (e.g. using generalization, circumlocution, word coinage, exemplification; c. Using synonyms and antonyms; d. Conscious transfer in the form of creating one’s own words, when a learner does not know the correct terms (e.g. by pronouncing Polish words with an English accent, adding English morphemes to Polish terms); e. Language switch – using words from Polish; f. Addressing the teacher for assistance; g. Asking classmates; h. Using non-verbal communication (miming, gestures, facial expressions); i. Using strategies, which help them gain some time, such as language fillers, repetitions, etc.
232
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Appendix 2 Rank the usefulness of the following strategies in the communicative situations using the following chart and by inserting numbers from 1 to 9 where one means the most useful strategy and nine signifies the least helpful one Communicative Strategies
How useful is the strategy? (1-9)
a. Topic avoidance; b. Paraphrasing (e.g. using generalization, circumlocution, word coinage, exemplification; c. Using synonyms and antonyms; d. Conscious transfer in the form of creating one’s own words, when a learner does not know the correct terms (e.g. by pronouncing Polish words with an English accent, adding English morphemes to Polish terms); e. Language switch – using words from Polish; f. Addressing the teacher for assistance; g. Asking classmates; h. Using non-verbal communication (miming, gestures, facial expressions); i. Using strategies, which help them gain some time, such as language fillers, repetitions, etc.
233
Appendix 3 Which communicative strategies would you use to solve the following communication problems? The table is a matrix with 6 situatuons (horizontal cells) and 9 strategies (vertical columns), and informants must check with an X the strategies used in the sitations. Situations: 1. You do not understand a single word in a listening task. What do you do? Who do you ask for help? Do you leave the task undone? 2. Your teacher shows you pictures with different jobs and asks you to name them in English. You are not sure about the English equivalents. What do you do? 3. The teacher writes down some names of dishes on the blackboard. You are asked to explain what they are, where they can be eaten, etc. You encounter problems with providing the answer as you are not familiar with the vocabulary needed to handle the task. What do you do? 4. The teacher writes down some names of dishes on the blackboard. You are asked to explain what they are, where they can be eaten, etc. You encounter problems with providing the answer as you are not familiar with the vocabulary needed to handle the task. What do you do? 5. You are asked to act out a role of a patient at the doctor’s surgery and describe the symptoms, e.g. fever, a sore throat, a headache, but it causes difficulty. What do you do? 6. The teacher asks you to talk about ‘the greenhouse effect” for at least three minutes, but after one minute you do not know what else to say. What do you do? Strategies: a.
Topic avoidance;
b. Paraphrasing (e.g. using generalization, circumlocution, word coinage, exemplification;
234
c.
Using synonyms and antonyms;
d. Conscious transfer in the form of creating one’s own words, when a learner does not know the correct terms (e.g. by pronouncing Polish words with an English accent, adding English morphemes to Polish terms); e.
Language switch – using words from Polish;
f.
Addressing the teacher for assistance;
g. Asking classmates; h. Using non-verbal communication (miming, gestures, facial expressions); i.
Using strategies, which help them gain some time, such as language fillers, repetitions, etc.
235
