UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Language socialization of Japanese ESL students in an advanced public speaking and debating class Niiyama, Miki 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-0183.pdf [ 8.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078096.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078096-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078096-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078096-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078096-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078096-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078096-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078096-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078096.ris

Full Text

L A N G U A G E S O C I A L I Z A T I O N OF J A P A N E S E ESL S T U D E N T S I N A N A D V A N C E D P U B L I C S P E A K I N G A N D D E B A T I N G C L A S S by M I K I N I I Y A M A B.A . , Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts, 1986 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF A R T S i n T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Language Education ( T E A C H I N G E N G L I S H A S A S E C O N D L A N G U A G E ) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A A p r i l , 1997 © M i k i Niiyama, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) u ABSTRACT This study explored the usefulness of public speaking and debating activities for an English as a second language (ESL) classroom, and the ways the Japanese students developed their oral English skils in a public speaking and debating class for advanced ESL students. Focusing on one recurent speech event, individual oral presentation, the study examined the kinds of language and rhetorical features the Japanese ESL students acquired in the class, and the processes by which they were socialized into the appropriate use of their target language to work on the public speaking activities in that particular classroom context. Taking an ethnographic research approach, the study employed a variety of data colection methods: administering a questionnaire, observing a classroom for three months and interviewing participants of the study. Six Japanese students consisting of five females and one male, and one ESL instructor who was a native speaker of English, were the participants of this study. Five language and rhetorical features were introduced to the class as necessary skils for conducting an individual oral presentation. The students learned these aspects mainly through the instructor's explicit teaching, including scafolded interaction between the instructor and the students, and applied them to their individual presentations. The results of a descriptive analysis revealed that some of these language and rhetorical features taught in the class were exactly paralel to certain principles of rhetoric in English, and that a recurent patern in the instructor's teaching style included modeling, joint negotiation I l l between teacher and students or among students, and students' independent construction. With consistent feedback, this cyclical instructional process faciltated the development of the students' public speaking skils in their target language. Finaly, the students' and the instructor's perception of their gains, and the value of this particular course were discussed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i v List of Figures v i i Acknowledgments ix Chapter One I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 Purpose of the Study 1 Research Questions 6 Significance of the Study 7 Chapter Two R E V I E W OF R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E 9 Public Speaking and Debating in ESL Classroom 10 Standards of Public Speaking Techniques and Rhetoric i n English 13 Contrastive Rhetoric 18 Rhetorical Differences between Japanese and English 21 Theoretical Orientation (Task as a Uni t of Analysis) 26 (1) S L A Input-Interaction 28 (2) Language Socialization 30 Chapter Three M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D C O N T E X T 36 V Qualitative Research Design (An Ethnographic Approach) . . 36 (1) Qualitative Research Methods (Ethnographic Techniques). 37 (2) Verification (Reliability and Validity) 41 Context 44 (1) The Research Location 44 (2) Participants . . . • 46 Participants' English Language Backgrounds 48 Personal Goals in the Public Speaking and Debating Class 49 Procedure 50 (1) Data Collection 51 Questionnaire 51 Classroom Observation 51 Interviews 53 (2) Analysis 54 Chapter Four F I N D I N G S OF T H E S T U D Y 57 Structure of Events and Activities in the Classroom 57 (1) M a i n Events i n the Classroom 57 (2) Tasks or Activities for Developing Presentation Skills . . 59 (3) Individual Oral Presentations 63 Language Features and Rhetorical Principles of Individual Presentations 64 (1) Hook (Introduction) 64 (2) Organizational Principles of Presentation 73 Basic Organization 73 VI Problem-Solving Organization 85 Persuasive Organization 96 (3) Transitional Devices 109 (4) Sentence Patterns 122 (5) Opinions and Arguments 125 Chapter Five DISCUSSION OF T H E S T U D Y 134 Discussion of the Study 134 Pedagogical Implications 157 Implications for Future Research 160 References 162 Appendix 170 vii L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 4.1 Public Speaking & Debating (Main Events) 58 Figure 4.2 Tasks i n the First and Second weeks 60 Figure 4.3 Tasks in the Th i rd week 61 Figure 4.4 Tasks in the Fourth and Fifth weeks 62 Figure 4.5 Attention-Getter Options 68 Figure 4.6 The Structure of the Introduction 68 Figure 4.7 The Structure of the Body and Conc lus ion of the First Informative Presentation 77 Figure 4.8 Topic Narrowing — Topic Statement — M a i n Ideas 79 Figure 4.9 M a i n Ideas — Supporting Details 79 Figure 4.10 Outline Form 80 Figure 4.11 The Structure of the Body and Conclus ion of the Second Informative Presentation 84 Figure 4.12 Thinking Through a Problem 87 Figure 4.13 The Relationship between Causes, Effects, Problems and Solutions 88 Figure 4.14 "Homosexual Adopt ion" 89 Figure 4.15 The Structure of the Body and Conc lus ion in the Problem-Solving Presentation 95 v Figure 4.16 Persuasive Appeals and Motivations 97 Figure 4.17 Persuasive Presentation Organization 98 Figure 4.18 The Structure of the Introduction, Body and Conclus ion i n the First Persuasive Presentation 107 Figure 4.19 Transitional Words in the First and Second Presentation . . . . 113 Figure 4.20 Transitional Devices 115 Figure 4.21 Transitional Words in the Third , Fourth and Fifth Presentations 117 Figure 4.22 Sentence Patterns 123 Figure 4.23 Sentence Patterns in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Presentations . . . 124 Figure 4.24 Opinions and Arguments 126 Figure 4.25 Expressions for Opinions and Arguments at Question Periods (Second Persuasive Presentation) 131 Figure 5.1 The Process of Learning "Hook" 145 Figure 5.2 The Process of Learning Providing an Overview 145 Figure 5.3 The Process of Learning a Basic Organization 146 Figure 5.4 The Process of Learning Problem-Solving Organization . . . . 147 Figure 5.5 The Process of Learning Persuasive Organization 147 Figure 5.6 The Process of Learning Transitional Devices 148 Figure 5.7 The Process of Learning Sentence Patterns 149 Figure 5.8 The Process of Learning Expressions for Opinions and Arguments 149 Figure 5.9 Students' and Instructor's Perception of Their Gains 152 Figure 5.10 Students' Perception of the Course 154 ix A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S First of all, I would l ike to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr . Gloria Tang for her advice and support. Also , I am grateful for the valuable suggestions of Dr. Rick Berwick and Dr. Lee Gunderson, who were on my thesis committee. Further, I want to thank all of my research participants, including the ESL instructor and students of the class. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the study, I cannot reveal the identity of any of those mentioned above. However , this research couldn't have been successfully completed without their cooperation. I would also like to thank all of my dear friends i n Vancouver. I especially like to thank Yoko Shiaku, Alex Lee, Brenda Mor izak i , Yasuko Hidaka, Phi l l ip Eastley, and Sumiko Nishizawa. They always warmly supported me. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Yoshihiko and Junko Ni iyama, who lives i n Kitakyushu, Japan. They gave me tremendous encouragement and support throughout my graduate studies. 1 Chapter One INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to explore the usefulness of public speaking and debating activities for English as a second language (ESL) students; and (2) to discover how Japanese students developed their oral English skils in a public speaking and debating class for advanced ESL students. The study focused particularly on language and rhetorical features of individual oral presentations which advanced Japanese ESL students acquired in one specifc classroom context, and the processes those students underwent to be socialized into the appropriate use of their target language to work on these speech events. In additon to these, to deeply understand the students' learning, it briefly looked at the organization of the classroom, including the sequences of classroom events and activities. The study can be looked at from two perspectives. First of all, public speaking and debating activities can be recognized as means of faciltating the development of the students' language skils; in other words, students improve their language skils by engaging in these activities. On the other hand, the teacher's direct instruction and other classroom activities can be considered as means enabling students to conduct the public speaking and debating successfuly. 2 ESL teachers have always been interested in discussing effective methods of teaching, including communicative task or activity types in the classroom, in order to help students develop their English competence. Many scholars, practitioners, and classroom teachers have advocated the potential usefulness of public speaking and debating for ESL or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. Employing presentation, debate and panel discussion as classroom activities is generally believed to assist ESL students not only to acquire new vocabulary or linguistic aspects but also to develop their analytical and critical thinking skills, and logical methods of speaking. However, despite the fact that a great number of advantages of these activities for second language learning in a classroom setting have been enumerated, almost no empirical study has been conducted in order to explore how these activities are taught in the classroom and how learners develop their language skills by working on these activities. In particular, moreover, although their potential for language learning has been articulated, the aspects of language that students may acquire through them, have rarely been referred to in detail. This study attempted to discover what kinds of language aspects learners in fact acquired and how they learned those language aspects through engaging in these activities. When looking at the relationship between public speaking and debating activities and language learning, one of the focal aspects is 'rhetoric' The term 'rhetoric' is commonly referred to as the skill or art of expressing oneself appropriately and effectively in relation to the topic of writing or speech, the audience, and the purpose of communication (Richards, Piatt & Piatt, 1992). Among the many ESL educators and teachers who suggest employing public 3 speaking and debating activities i n the classroom are Sauers (1987) and Foreman-Takano (1992), who point out the intimate relationship between these activities and the rhetoric of English. In other words, public speaking and debating i n English do require the speaker to make clear explanations and draw clear logical connections between information, its interpretation, and proposals based on it (Foreman-Takano, 1992). Generally speaking, English language rhetoric is logical. Therefore, those speaking techniques represent the rhetoric of English language. Both of them suggest the possible integration of wri t ing wi th public speaking and debating instruction since most of the principles involved i n making a fine speech are equivalent to those employed i n wri t ing composit ion. Foreman-Takano (1992) is also interested in contrastive rhetoric, a concept originally articulated by Robert Kaplan i n 1966. Contrastive rhetoric is "the study of similarities and differences between writ ing i n a first and second language or between two languages, i n order to understand how writing conventions i n one language influence how a person writes i n another" (Richards, Piatt & Piatt, 1992, p. 84). In other words, contrastive rhetoric studies examine the contrasting shape of differing rhetorical skills and strategies i n writers from different cultures. For instance, comparing the rhetorical structures between English and Japanese, Hinds (1987) identifies the former as a speaker/writer responsible language, and the latter as a listener/reader responsible language. Foreman-Takano (1992) claims that engaging in English debate of any persuasion enables ESL or EFL students to learn such elements of the rhetoric of their target language as speaker/writer responsibility. Al though the focus of the present study was spoken discourse of Japanese ESL students when they were participating i n 4 ind iv idua l presentations, the contrastive rhetoric approach has a special relevance to this study since the presentation is a k ind of planned discourse (Ochs, 1983) and is always concerned wi th audience, just as writ ing is. Contrastive rhetoric research has been criticized by proponents of process approaches to writ ing as follows: it focuses only on end-product, and ignores both the contrastive rhetorical context from which the second language (L2) writers emerge and the processes they may have experienced to produce a text (Leki, 1991). For example, M o h a n and Lo (1985) point out that L2 wri t ing problems are caused by the insufficient abilities of developing writers rather than the influence of their first language (Ll) rhetoric. However, it also cannot be denied that writ ing techniques or strategies are structured in a culturally legitimate manner, and are passed on to following generations through the formal educational system (Grabe and Kaplan, 1989); therefore, when writing i n their L2, writers may follow their L l rhetoric or writ ing strategies unless they are directly taught L2 schemata. If public speaking and debating activities provide Japanese ESL students wi th English rhetorical principles, those students may be able to be socialized into effective communicative styles in their target language through engaging i n those activities. Whereas the present study for the most part shared this viewpoint, it also moved beyond the texts themselves to an examination of the rhetorical context i n which they were embedded, and explored the processes Japanese ESL students had gone through to perform ind iv idua l oral presentations i n their target language. However, it d id not set out to examine the interference of L l rhetoric in L2 discourse. In order to pursue these ends, this study employed the theoretical framework of language socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1986; Ochs, 1988). Task' analysis currently attracts great attention from both the perspectives of second language pedagogy and research. There are at least two kinds of theoretical orientation which examine language learning through tasks: the second language acquisition (SLA) input-interaction and the language socialization (Mohan & Smith, 1992). The former generally conducts experimental research to search for effective task types and group membership patterns (arrangement of participants) which facilitate language learning. Then it analyzes the learners' discourse by applying predetermined categories. Because of the characteristics of its research style, this orientation tends to conceal fundamentally important mechanisms of L2 development, and to ignore the social context as an arena for truly collaborative L2 acquisition. In contrast, the latter orientation qualitatively investigates the learning processes of L2 learners through tasks over a long period of time. In this orientation, discourse is analyzed based on language features which have emerged in the natural context, and the context in which language learning has occurred is also illuminated. This theoretical orientation sees 'task' (or activity) quite differently from SLA input and interaction. Here 'task' is not merely a means of eliciting certain categories of discourse from language learners. Rather, it is central to both development of language knowledge and sociocultural knowledge. Proponents of language socialization understand that language learning and culture learning occur simultaneously through the mediation of activity. That is, novices in society gradually acquire tacit knowledge of principles 6 of social order and systems of belief which are necessary to become competent members i n that society through engaging i n language-mediated interaction or activity (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1986; Ochs, 1988; Crago, 1992). L2 learners, therefore, not only acquire linguistic knowledge but also sociocultural knowledge of their target language (e.g., culturally appropriate manner of greeting, requesting, apologizing, participating i n a particular activity and so on) wi th the assistance of experts. Reflecting on this framework, this study explored what kinds of language and sociocultural aspects were i n fact taught in a particular ESL classroom (Public Speaking and Debating class), and how Japanese ESL students learned those language and sociocultural aspects by engaging i n ind iv idua l oral presentations. Moreover, the study employed ethnographic research methods to reveal what really occurred i n a specific ESL classroom which focused on those activities. Research Questions This ethnographic study was conducted to investigate how Japanese students developed their communication skills i n English by working on public speaking activities i n an advanced ESL classroom. More specifically, I attempted to answer the following questions: 1. H o w were the public speaking and debating activities employed i n a certain advanced ESL classroom? What kinds of other tasks or activities were uti l ized to enable students to become accustomed to doing these major activities? 7 2. What kinds of language features and rhetorical principles were in fact introduced in that class which focused on public speaking and debating skills? 3. How and to what extent were the Japanese ESL students in the class socialized into such speech activities? 4. What were the students' and the instructor's perception of their gains? And what were the students' impressions of the course on the whole? 5. Were there any cultural constraints implicit in students' individual presentations? Significance of the Study The goals of this study were to contribute to the research and theory on public speaking and debating, and to provide pedagogical suggestions to ESL or EFL instructors of public speaking classes, especially those who have many Japanese students in their classes. First of all, despite recognition of the usefulness of public speaking and debating for ESL or EFL classrooms by many scholars and classroom teachers, almost no empirical study has been conducted in order to discover how these activities are taught in the classroom and how the ESL students develop their communication skills by working on the activities in their target language. In particular, although their potential for language learning has been advocated, what kinds of language and rhetorical features learners in fact acquire by working on these activities, and how they learn them in real-life classroom situations, have rarely been explored in detail. The present study attempted to address these 8 issues. I hoped that this ethnographic study would fi l l a gap in the research o n particular activities such as public speaking and debating i n ESL classrooms. Secondly, the study can also be recognized as rather practical i n nature. Every year many Japanese post-secondary or adult students visit and stay i n Canada i n order to learn English. For these Japanese students, acquiring relatively contrasting rhetoric or language features that are quite distinct f rom their first language is not easy. If it could be suggested that working on public speaking and debating activities helped Japanese ESL students to learn these relatively contrasting or distinct language aspects i n their target language, or if it could be manifested that the processes these students experienced, including the teacher's instruction, assisted them to develop their oral English skills, the findings would inform ESL pedagogy, and contribute to the teaching practices i n classes where there are large numbers of Japanese students whose first language rhetoric is quite different from that of English. 9 Chapter Two REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE M y attempt to understand the topic in depth required a review of the following literature. First, since the focus of the study was a particular public speaking and debating class for ESL students, I needed to understand the value of public speaking and debating activities in the ESL classroom. Then, I had to f ind out what kinds of speaking techniques and rhetoric were pervasive among public speakers i n English. Third , to discover the characteristics of the language and rhetorical features the Japanese ESL students i n fact acquired in a particular ESL classroom, and from time to time to make a comparison between standards of rhetoric i n English and those i n Japanese, I reviewed the studies o n contrastive rhetoric and rhetorical differences between Japanese and English. Finally, I had to understand the perspective of language socialization, which I employed as a theoretical framework to guide the present study that looked at the learning processes of the Japanese ESL students through tasks over a long period of time. Moreover, i n order to deeply understand the concept of language socialization, which is a relatively new framework in the field of S L A research, I attempted to look at a contrasting framework, S L A input-interaction, and compare it wi th language socialization. In this chapter, I w i l l present a review of the literature on these issues i n the following order: 1. public speaking and debating i n the ESL classroom; 2. the standards of public speaking techniques and rhetoric i n English; 3. the inquiry of contrastive rhetoric; 4. rhetorical differences 10 between Japanese and English; and 5. theoretical orientation (task as a unit of analysis) of S L A input-interaction and language socialization. Publ ic Speaking and Debating i n E S L Classroom The potential usefulness of public speaking and debating for ESL or EFL classrooms has been articulated by many scholars, practitioners and classroom teachers over the past two or three decades. In addition to assisting ESL learners to acquire new vocabulary and other l inguistic elements, presentations, debates, and panel discussions as classroom activities are believed to provide them w i t h opportunities to develop their analytical and critical thinking, and logical methods of speaking. Reflecting on their daily ESL or language classrooms, some educators discuss this issue. Stokes (1976), for example, claims that regular debating as classroom activity can provide ESL students wi th the extra-linguistic context for the production of whole oral texts. Whole oral texts can be the best way to assess the students' language-learning propensities. Through students' performances in a debate, teachers are able to most effectively gain an insight into the ways i n which their students' language-learning occurs. Based on their own experiences as ESL classroom teachers, moreover, Conway (1979) and Leong (1980) report the usefulness of a debate as a means of facilitating students' English learning. Conway describes an ESL class (composition and grammatical review class) i n which he conducted an intermediate to advanced level TESOL debate unit for an eight-to-ten-classes. He explains the steps he and his students experienced, and 11 concludes that a debate can stimulate students' curiosity, produce meaningful dialogue, and provide the skills for library research and writing reports. Leong also argues that a debate can elicit semi-spontaneous communication i n the TEFL classroom. She outlines the potential pedagogical implications for ESL instructors by indicating chronological steps an instructor should take w h e n introducing debate techniques. Both Sauers (1987) and Foreman-Takano (1992) propose the possible application of public speaking and debating skills to writ ing classrooms. Sauers emphasizes the interrelationship between public speaking and writing. A l l of the guidelines to producing a fine speech are equivalent to those used i n wri t ing compositions, since both speaking and writ ing generally require skills i n library research, organizing material succinctly and persuading (Sauers, 1987). Recommending the teaching of rhetoric, "the art of speaking or wri t ing effectively" (Sauers, 1987, p. 23), Sauers claims that where writing is a central part of the curriculum, speech should also be included. Foreman-Takano (1992), furthermore, argues that introducing debate techniques or skills (e.g., critical thinking, organizational skills, researching, analyzing, and outlining) i n the EFL composition classroom would effectively help students not only to learn writ ing but also to integrate development of their reading and writ ing skills. It is assumed that "possession of these skills is seen by the culture as being valuable and also relevant to becoming an effective user of the language" (Foreman-Takano, 1992). Her primary concern is contrastive rhetoric, first discussed i n Kaplan's seminal work i n 1966. She claims that wh i l e wri t ing has begun to be recognized as a process rather than an end product, it is 12 also inevitable that many composition instructors still give a higher priority to form and rhetoric (Zamel, 1985; Horowitz , 1986). Hinds (1987) defines Japanese rhetoric as being 'reader responsible,' and English rhetoric as 'writer-responsible.' This distinction depends on the extent of speaker's awareness of the audience. Since "English debate of any persuasion does require the debater to make clear implications and draw clear logical connections between data, its interpretation, and proposals based on it" (Foreman-Takano, 1992, p. 348), debate techniques would enable EFL students to learn the rhetoric of their target language, and to apply it to their EFL academic wri t ing. A s discussed above, the potential usefulness of public speaking and debating activities for ESL classrooms or even other classrooms has frequently been advocated. However, almost no empirical research has been conducted i n order to explore its usefulness and to discover what students really learn through engaging i n those classroom activities. In terms of learning English as a second or foreign language, what linguistic aspects learners i n fact acquire, what k ind of organizing or outl ining techniques and rhetoric they learn, and how their discourse patterns change by participating i n those activities have rarely been pursued. The present study addressed these issues by examining the data collected i n an actual ESL classroom w h i c h focused on developing students' public speaking and debating skills i n English. 13 Standards of Public Speaking Techniques and Rhetoric in English A large number of guide- or text-books which introduce helpful technical skills, rhetoric, and preparatory steps a person can take when speaking in public i n English have been published. Moreover, many university and college communication curricula i n N o r t h Amer ica include public speaking classes as fundamental courses (Johnson & Szczupakiewicz, 1987). What kinds of techniques and rhetoric for speaking in public are suggested or instructed i n those textbooks or classrooms? Al though approaches may be slightly different across textbooks and classrooms, similar themes are identified. For example, the following contents are generally recognized i n such guidebooks for public speaking: determining the subject area and purpose, analyzing audience, generating the speech materials, organizing the speech, developing the introduction and conclusion of the speech, delivering the speech (body language and voice projection), preparing visual aids, and so forth (e.g., Barrett, 1987; Sternberg, 1984; White, 1978). In this section, I w i l l briefly review the standards of those technical skills which appear to be pervasive i n English speaking environments. The review here w i l l focus particularly on the issues of organization of a speech (development of an introduction, a body, and a conclusion, and employment of transitions) because the primary concern of the present study was the change i n ESL students' language and rhetoric patterns through their frequent engagement i n ind iv idua l oral presentations in their target language. 14 In the field of public speaking, the organization of a speech (a system of outlining) is usually considered to be of primary importance among the various speaking techniques. Barrett (1987) defines the outline of a speech as follows: "it is the framework of the entire speech, which shows the principal points to be covered, the order i n which they w i l l be covered, their relationship to one another, and often their relative weight or importance" (p. 49). A t least two benefits of outlining are recognized. First, by outlining his or her speech, the speaker is able to arrange his or her ideas in the most effective logical and psychological manner, to examine the merit of supporting materials, to estimate more accurately the length of the speech, and to ensure that the address has unity, coherence, and emphasis (White, 1978). Second, a well-organized speech helps listeners to comprehend, to remember, and to think about or act on the message (Sternberg, 1984). Barrett (1987) argues that the audience expects messages to be organized in a certain way and so experienced speakers structure their thoughts to accommodate their listeners' need for order. Accordingly, the organization of a speech plays a critical role for both speaker and listener. The outline of the speech generally consists of three parts: an introduct ion (including a thesis statement), a body, and a conclusion. A n introduction is a vital element of a speech. Through this part, a speaker aims to (1) establish a base for meeting the audience, and to (2) guide the audience to the thesis statement and the body of the speech (Barrett, 1984; White, 1978). To attract attention and develop interest, many speakers begin by addressing an area of common interest or common concern. Most guidebooks for public speaking suggest employing a startling statement, asking the audience a striking question, or using humor, a 15 quotation, or statistics (e.g., Barrett, 1984; White, 1978). After establishing rapport, speakers need to prepare the listeners for the body of the speech. Clearly stating the point of the speech, explaining how the body is to be developed, provid ing necessary background explanation, and so on are particularly recommended. O n the other hand, being apologetic, long-winded, antagonistic, or irrelevant are advised against. Al though the introduction usually occupies only about ten per cent of the total length (White, 1978), it is a crucial part and may determine whether or not the audience is successfully carried forward to the proposit ion and the rest of the speech. Next, concerning the development of the body of the speech, many textbooks demonstrate how to brainstorm the proposition, choose two or three main ideas, and explore supportive materials. After evolving a group of two to three major ideas, the speaker needs to check the balance of these ideas and eliminate any overlapping; each one must be parallel to the others, and be mutually exclusive of every other idea (Barrett, 1987). The sequence of m a i n ideas is determined by the rhetorical choice of the speaker and the purpose of the speech: e.g., time sequence, topical sequence, cause-effect sequence, problem-solution sequence and so forth. A speaker has to arrange the ideas in the most effective logical and psychological order. After choosing the major headings, the speaker needs to consider supporting materials that w i l l make them clear, v i v i d and impressive (White, 1978). A n y illustrations, statistics, comparisons, contrast, testimony, explanation, or visual aids which help to develop the point are usually suggested. Based on the thought relationships discussed above, W h i t e (1978) presents a standard system of outlining for the body of the speech: 16 Body: I. Major idea N o . 1 directly supporting the Specific Speech Purpose A . First subhead supporting 1 y 1. First subpoint supporting A a. First detail supporting 1 (1) First detail supporting a (a) First detail supporting (1) (b) Second detail supporting (1) (2) Second detail supporting a b. Second detail supporting 1 2. Second subpoint supporting A 3. Thi rd subpoint supporting A B. Second subhead supporting I II. Major idea N o . IT directly supporting the Specific Speech Purpose (p.97) This outline structure is most frequently recognized i n guidebooks for public speaking. Coordinate and subordinate points are clearly identified wi th heading symbols and indentations. Whi le the usefulness of this style of organization, particularly for beginning speakers, is widely accepted, most writers of such guidebooks are against treating it as prescriptive (e.g., White, 1978). Third , i n relation to conclusions, almost every guidebook for public speaking proposes at least the following two goals: to summarize the m a i n points and to restate the central theme. Since people are likely to forget more readily than we realize (Barrett, 1987), it is crucial for a speaker to review the major aspects and articulate the central theme of the speech again. A conclusion is a final opportunity to accomplish the purpose of the speaker. After the summary, this restatement can provide a feeling of completeness indispensable to the effect of the speech (Barrett, 1987). Besides being consistent wi th the purpose of the speech, other options such as using a fitting story, an example, or well-chosen words of an authority are also usually recommended. Similar to an 17 introduction, a conclusion should not apologize, be abrupt or long-winded, introduce important new points, or include irrelevant material. Finally, transitions cannot be ignored when discussing the organization of a speech in English. Transitions are words, phrases or sentences to show the audience the progression of thought, how one idea is related to another, and which ideas are underscored, and which subordinated (Barrett, 1987; Sternberg, 1984). In order to achieve coherence and avoid confusion, speakers need to guide their audience with the assistance of transitions. Chaudron and Richards (1986), based on the findings of their research, also argue that such discourse markers (they call transitions "discourse markers") play an important role in the learners' comprehension and retention of lectures. Some textbooks advise speakers to provide those transitional words to announce the proposition, the first main heading, subheads, each new heading, and the closing remarks (e.g., Barrett, 1987). In addition, they recommend that word, phrase and sentence choices be varied occasionally instead of the same words, phrases and sentences being used repeatedly. The characteristics of speech organization and rhetoric discussed above are presented in many guidebooks and public speaking classes in English. Generally, fundamental differences between spoken and written discourse have been recognized and discussed by many researchers (e.g., Brown & Yule, 1983; Tannen, 1982). However, since public speaking is a planned discourse (Ochs, 1983) similar to writing, many of these organizational and rhetorical features are similar to those of writing (Kinneavy & Kline, 1976; O'Keefe, 1981; Sauers, 1987). From the viewpoint of second language pedagogy, then, contrastive rhetoric, which has 18 significantly influenced studies of second language writing and instruction (Takano, 1993), may also have special relevance to public speaking in target languages. In the following section, I will discuss issues in modern contrastive rhetoric studies, focusing particularly on the rhetorical differences between English and Japanese because the primary focus of the present study was Japanese students learning English in Canada. Contrastive Rhetoric The field of contrastive rhetoric, initiated by applied linguist Robert Kaplan in 1966, is one area of research in second language acquisition. Its primary purpose is to identify problems in composition encountered by second language writers (Connor, 1996). Contrastive rhetoric studies have generally examined discourse in L l and compared it with English, or more exactly, with what English is considered to look like (Leki, 1991). Some researchers have attempted to determine whether or not the transfer of L l rhetoric to L2 writing does in fact occur. However, Kaplan's initial argument — that every language entails a culture-bound logic and a culture-specific rhetoric, and that the linguistic and rhetorical conventions of the first language interfere with writing in the second language — has given rise to much controversy. Opponents to such text-oriented research (proponents of process approaches) argue that "contrastive rhetoric research examines the product only, detaching it from and ignoring both the contrastive rhetorical context from which the L2 writers emerge and the processes these writers may have gone 19 through to produce a text" (Leki, 1991, p. 123). Furthermore, they maintain that the pedagogical implication of text-oriented research has been more prescriptive than suggestive. Mohan and Lo (1985) claim that L2 writing problems are those of any developing writer and not the result of influences from their L l rhetoric. Nevertheless, Grabe and Kaplan (1989) argue that it has been recognized that writ ing skills or strategies are structured i n a culturally legitimate manner, and are transmitted from generation to generation, usually through the formal educational system. Therefore, while writers might produce problems i n their writ ing because of insufficient abilities i n the target language when writ ing i n their L2, they consciously or unconsciously also tend to follow their L l rhetoric or writ ing techniques unless they are directly instructed i n L2 schemata. Ethnographic studies also have supported this concept of writ ing as a culture-dependent behavior (Takano, 1993). Assuming the potential of contrastive rhetoric research for L2 wri t ing pedagogy, Lek i (1991) claims that different cultures have different rhetorical preferences and expectations: ... different cultures wou ld orient their discourse i n different ways. Even different discourse communities wi th in a single language, such as those constituted by different academic disciplines, have different writ ing conventions: preferred length of sentences, choice of vocabulary, acceptability of using first person, extent of using passive voice, degree to which writers are permitted to interpret, amount of metaphorical language accepted. If different discourse communities employ differing rhetorics, and if there is transfer of skills and strategies from L l to L2, then contrastive rhetoric studies might reveal the shape of those rhetorical skills and strategies in writers from different cultures, (pp. 124-125) Takano (1993) defines rhetoric as "a learned norm of writ ing which is derived from culturally bound ways of processing information" (p. 43). M u c h research has been conducted i n L2 rhetoric from a comparative perspective. According to 20 such studies, the rhetorical principles of the writer's first language are i n fact transferred to the L2 text, and occasionally such interference negatively affects the native reader's assessment of the text. Takano (1993), for instance, investigates the interference of Japanese-specific rhetoric i n the writ ing of English as a second language, and the extent to which the transferred rhetorical schemata is incompatible wi th native Engl ish readers' expectations. The result of this study shows that the transfer of Japanese rhetorical strategies does indeed occur i n native Japanese speakers' written texts i n English. Moreover, the readers' evaluation of the texts significantly depends on their native expectations of rhetoric. Clyne (1987) reports the transfer of German rhetoric i n English academic texts written by native German speakers. His study indicates that German-specific rhetorical principles are identified more prominently i n ESL texts than i n L l (German) texts written by the same authors because of the writers' linguistic problems i n second language rhetoric. Mauranen (1993), furthermore, examines the cultural differences between texts written by Finnish and Anglo-Amer ican academics wi th respect to metatext use i n papers from economics journals. The results suggest that Ang lo -Amer i can writers employ more metatext or text about text than Finnish writers. She claims that the texts written by Finnish demonstrate their native rhetorical features: they use relatively little metalanguage for explicitly organizing the text and orienting the reader. Reflecting on these research findings, the pedagogical implication seems to be that an orientation of contrastive rhetoric would function to help ESL students become more conscious of themselves as members of a variety of 21 discourse communities, and to encourage the development i n students of rhetorical schemata which correspond to those of English-speaking readers. It would also enable ESL writ ing teachers to avoid uncritically adopting skills or strategies from native-speaker composition classrooms into ESL contexts (Leki, 1991). Al though this approach tends to be regarded as form-focused, the true or ultimate focus is audience. ESL students' texts w i l l become easier for native speakers to read if the students are made aware of the rhetorical expectations of the readers, and therefore organize their texts and orient the audience i n a way which corresponds to reader expectations. Since the present study focused on Japanese ESL students' socialization into public speaking rhetoric i n their target language (English), the next section w i l l look at the rhetorical differences between Japanese and English. Rhetorical Diferences between Japanese and English Of special relevance to this paper is the notion of reader/listener responsibility i n contrast to writer/speaker responsibility, articulated by Hinds (1987). Hinds ' notion includes consideration of the influences of sociocultural values of language i n discourse. There are different expectations wi th respect to the degree of involvement a reader w i l l have, and this degree of i n v o l v e m e n t w i l l depend on the language of the reader. In other words, H inds claims that " i n some languages, such as English, the person primarily responsible for effective communicat ion is the speaker, while i n other languages, such as Japanese, the person primarily responsible for effective communication is the listener" (p. 22 143). However, this typology needs to be understood to constitute tendencies rather than exceptionless 'rules'. Referring to English and Japanese, Hinds regards English as a 'speaker/writer responsible' language, Japanese as a 'listener/ reader responsible' language. From a sociocultural viewpoint, this typology seems to be legitimate. The style of Japanese communication is affected by the social dogma of group harmony (Takano, 1993). Japanese verbal behaviors are frequently described as comprised of the dual structure — tatemae, indicating socially accepted norms, and honne, which are the unverbalized real feelings of the speaker/writer (Clancy, 1986; Loy, 1988; Yoshikawa, 1978). The cooperation and empathy of the listener/reader are essential for Japanese speakers and writers. That is, the Japanese listener/reader is required to sufficiently anticipate the needs, wants, and reactions of the speaker/writer, regardless of whether they are explicitly stated. Shibatani (1991) claims: The art of persuasion takes the norm of "beating about the bush"; whereby the listener is expected to make good guesses and to arrive on his own at the conclusion intended by the persuader. It is the person's ability to arrive at an intended conclusion rather than the persuader's logical presentation that is evaluated, (p. 390) A kind of "mind-reading" occurs without serious misunderstanding of the real intention of the speaker/writer (Clancy, 1986). English verbal culture, on the other hand, is likely to be seen as "straightforward." The speaker and the writer are primarily responsible for making statements clear and well-organized (Clancy, 1986; Hinds, 1987). A breakdown in communication is regarded as caused by an inability to produce understandable passages or lack of sufficient effort to get the meaning across 23 (Takano, 1993). Clancy (1986) argues that assertiveness training, for instance, aims to instruct people to express their feelings and ideas explicitly, and not to rely too much upon inexplicit or nonverbal messages. Hinds (1987) describes how the desire to write or speak clearly permeates English speaking culture by citing an aphorism for public speaking: "Tell 'em what you're going to tell'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em what you told'em" (p. 144). Unity and coherence are favored i n English writ ing rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966). Kaplan (1966) cites the definitions of these terms from Hughes and Duhamel (1962): "Unity is the quality attributed to writ ing which has all its necessary and sufficient parts. Coherence is the quality attributed to the presentation of material i n a sequence which is intelligible to its reader" (p. 4). Hinds ' typology — speaker/writer responsible vs listener/reader responsible — is supported by the concept of unity i n paragraphing (Hinds, 1987; Takano, 1993). Hinds (1987) claims that English prose is expected to use appropriate transition statements so that the listener/reader can grasp the whole picture of the composition, piecing together the thread of the writer's logic. In Japanese, on the other hand, such connection devices may be missing or subtle since it is the listener's or reader's responsibility to determine the relationship between any distinct parts of an essay. Al though there are transition statements i n Japanese, they may be more subtle and the listener/reader is required to take a more active role. Generally speaking, an English expository paragraph begins wi th a topic statement and then develops that statement by a succession of specific illustrations which are directly relevant to the topic. Al though some writers 24 argue that even professional native-speaker English writers do not always write i n a straight line beginning wi th a topic sentence and moving directly to support, and so on (Leki, 1991), it is nevertheless the fact that this standard organizational rhetoric permeates many writ ing classrooms i n English speaking countries. The standard rhetorical organization of the English paragraph has been characterized as follows: 1. Paragraphs are structured through a uniform participant orientation, focusing on the specific entertainer — topic entity. 2. The topic entity is established early i n the paragraph; i n most cases, it is established in the first sentence. 3. Paragraphs begin wi th the topic statement, then develop wi th the presentation of information from a variety of perspectives, all of which are directly related to that statement. 4. The subordinate information is hierarchically structured under the topic entity, and contributes to the reader's establishing a topic. (adapted from Hinds, 1980, pp. 131-132) In Japanese, on the other hand, Hinds (1980) discovers two predominant rhetorical styles of paragraphing, although those patterns are not always directly taught i n Japanese schools (Hinds, 1987). The first style, similar to the classical Chinese organization of poetry, is described by four Chinese characters: ki ( j ^ ) , shoo {$), ten and ketsu ( | £ ) . These characters represent the development of much contemporary Japanese expository writing. Each is defined as follows: {k i) — First, begin one's argument. (shoo) — Next, develop that. {ten) — A t the point where this development is finished, turn the idea to a subtheme where there is a connection, but not a directly connected association (to the major theme). {ketsu) — Last, bring all of this together and reach a conclusion. (Takemata, cited by Hinds, 1980, p. 132) The number of perspectives i n this schema is not restricted to four; for example, more than one 'ten' can be introduced, and from time to time, 'ketsu' is not expressed. 25 Another common organizing rhetoric is described by Hinds (1980) as i n the following figure: In this organization schema, the author first selects a baseline theme, and then returns overtly to this theme before progressing to a different viewpoint. The number of perspectives i n this structure is not l imited to four, either. In Japanese paragraphing, a definite topic statement is not always explicitly stated, but the baseline theme is essential to connecting each perspective and maintaining coherency (Takano, 1993). A conclusion does not need to be decisive. Ending a paragraph wi th an expression of doubt or a question is also permitted (Hinds, 1983). The common properties of the standard rhetorical organization of a Japanese paragraph can be characterized as follows: 1. Paragraphs are organized by returning to a baseline theme which is continually and implici t ly reinforced. 2. Information may be structured paratactically, neither linearly nor hierarchically. 3. Paragraphs develop wi th the presentation of information from a variety of perspectives, which are indirectly related to the paragraph topic entity. 4. It is not always the case that a Japanese paragraph begins wi th a topic sentence. (adapted from Hinds, 1980, p. 150) The focus of the present research is the spoken discourse of Japanese ESL students; however, studies of the different rhetorical organizations of paragraphs i n written texts i n Japanese and English are relevant to the present study since public speaking classes can be assumed to require ESL students to learn s imi lar rhetorical structures as those used i n writing. This study d id not aim to 26 determine whether or not the rhetorical principles of the speakers' L l are transferred to the L2 text. Rather, it investigated the kinds of rhetoric that were in fact introduced in an existing ESL public speaking and debating class, and how Japanese students were socialized into such public speaking rhetoric in their target language with the assistance of their instructor. As mentioned in the previous section, in the field of contrastive rhetoric research, the context from which writers emerge and the processes they go through to create texts are likely to be ignored. However, in this study, both the rhetorical context from which those Japanese ESL students emerged and the processes these students had gone through to produce texts were explored. In order to accomplish these goals, this study employed language socialization as a theoretical perspective. It is one kind of orientation for examining language learning through tasks (Mohan & S mith, 1992). In the next section, I will discuss this perspective in contrast with another one, second language acquisition input and interaction approach, and attempt to justify the application of the former to this research. Theoretical Orientation (Task as a Unit of Analysis) Over the past few decades, communicative tasks have greatly influenced second language curricula and SLA research. "When viewed from the perspective of current second language teaching and learning, a more effective way to assist language learning in the classroom and or to study the processes of second language acquisition is revealed through the use of communication tasks" (Pica, Kanagy & Falodun, 1993, p. 9). Communicative tasks, therefore, 27 currently attract great attention from both the perspectives of second language pedagogy and research. Crookes (1986) has claimed that 'task' analysis offers great potential strength and utility as a major unit of analysis throughout all educational research and design. Aiming to explore effective task types and group membership (arrangement of participants) which facilitate language learning, a great amount of experimental research has been conducted. Moreover, although the number is quite small and their focuses are not necessarily on communicative tasks, there are some studies which investigate qualitatively the learning processes of second language learners through tasks over a long period of time. Lately, at least two kinds of theoretical perspectives of investigating language learning through tasks have been identified: SLA input-interaction and language socialization (Mohan & Smith, 1992). Mohan and Smith (1992) argue that these two perspectives "differ in their assumptions about task, in the scope of phenomena they consider, in the methods they use, and in the results they produce" (p. 83). The present study employed the theoretical perspective of language socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1986) to look into the learning processes of the Japanese ESL students in a public speaking and debating classroom. It particularly focused on one recurring task, 'individual oral presentation.' In the following section, I will first .introduce the assumptions about task in the SLA input-interaction briefly, and then discuss those in the language socialization in detail, reviewing the related literature on this issue. 28 (1) SLA Input-Interaction The S L A input and interaction perspective has its starting point i n Krashen's input hypothesis (1980, 1983, 1985). His input hypothesis (1985) indicates that second language input must be both comprehended and at one stage above the learner's current level in order to be acquired (Loschky, 1994). "Comprehensible input is the true and only causative variable i n second language acquisition" (Krashen, 1987, p. 40). Based on this assumption, S L A researchers have investigated task types and group membership alternatives (e.g., native—normative speakers or nonnative—normative speakers) w h i c h provide learners wi th the greatest amount and variety of comprehensible input i n classroom settings. Negotiation of meaning has come to be critical i n S L A research. Long (1981) lists the conversational management devices that native speakers use when talking wi th learners, which are understood to prevent and repair breakdowns i n communicat ion and to sustain the conversation and make their inputs comprehensible (Porter, 1986). These devices, called 'interactional modifications/ include confirmation checks, comprehension checks, clarification requests, repetitions, expansions, and questions. Whi le a great amount of research on tasks has been conducted, connecting the negotiation of meaning and modification of interaction to L2 development (e.g., Long & Porter, 1985; Porter, 1986; Doughty & Pica, 1986; Pica, 1991), Swa in (1985) emphasizes the importance of comprehensible output of learners; that is, comprehensible input alone is not sufficient to facilitate language acquisition and learners need opportunities to produce new forms. These two discourse 29 processes, comprehensible input and output engendered in interaction, have been said to stimulate the development of the learner's inter language system in the SLA input-interaction perspective (Donato, 1994). Mohan and Smith (1992) claim that 'task' is here perceived in the tradition of psychological experiments: "the participants in the task are 'subjects,' engaged in an experimental task; task characteristics are seen as independent variables; and characteristics of task discourse are considered to be dependent variables" (p. 84). This perception of task is quite distinct from that in the language socialization approach; the latter reflects Activity Theory (Leont'ev, 1979) originated from Vygotsky. Since researchers in the SLA input and interaction school frequently employ experimental tasks in order to elicit a particular behavior from a subject or group of subjects, and code and analyze the discourse data of their subjects based on predetermined categories of negotiation moves and so forth, the importance of the dynamic of social context influencing L2 development and task accomplishment, is likely to be left unclear or to be ignored. Moreover, language learning and acquisition processes are rarely described. Donato (1994) claims that the study of L2 interaction conceals fundamentally important mechanisms of L2 development and undervalues the social context as an arena for truly collaborative L2 acquisition. Referring to Vygotsky's Activity Theory, Coughlan and Duff (1994) argue that "what is often conceived of a fixed 'task' is really quite variable, not only across subjects but within the same subject at different times" (p. 174). 30 (2) Language Socialization The theoretical framework of this study is language socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Ochs, 1988). Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) state that the goal of language socialization study is to understand how people become competent members of their social groups and the role language has i n this process, while that of the study of language acquisition is to understand what constitutes linguistic competence at different developmental points. Language socialization is a concept, comprising two major areas of socialization: "socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language" (Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin, 1990). In this framework, children and other novices i n society gradually acquire tacit knowledge of principles of social order and systems of belief which are necessary to becoming competent members i n that society through engaging in language-mediated interaction or activity (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1986; Ochs, 1988; Crago, 1992). The assistance of experts or more competent members of the culture is therefore essential to the process of socialization. That is, through scaffolded interaction wi th experts (Cazden, 1988), novices become able to participate i n social interactions or activities which are beyond their current competence, and extend their current skills and knowledge to higher level of competence (Cazden & Forman, 1985; Dona to, 1994). However , bi-directional consequences are also recognized; novices bring their expectations, needs and existing competencies to experts, and experts therefore can learn from novices (Duff, 1995; Ochs, 1988). 31 The concept of language socialization regards learning language and learning culture as integrated processes; it also assumes that the development of language and the development of knowledge (sociocultural knowledge) occur simultaneously. Namely, sociocultural information is understood to be encoded in the structure of conversational discourse. Ochs (1986) refers to this point as follows: Many formal and functional features of discourse carry sociocultural information, including phonological and morphosyntactic constructions, the lexicon, speech-act types, conversational sequencing, genres, interruptions, overlaps, gaps, and turn length. In other words, part of the meaning of grammatical and conversational structures is sociocultural. These structures are socially organized and hence carry information concerning social order. Language in use is then a major if not the major tool for conveying sociocultural knowledge and powerful medium of socialization, (p. 3) Accordingly, "the process of acquiring language is embedded in the process of acquiring culture" (Ochs, 1987, p. 307). In this theoretical perspective, task (or activity) is seen quite differently from in the SLA input-interaction perspective. Here, human activity (or task) is central to both development of language knowledge and sociocultural knowledge. Leont'ev (1979), a Soviet psychologist, claims that not only the human organism but also the activity in which the human agent engages is responsible for developing knowledge about the world. Inspired by the work of researchers such as Vygotsky (1962, 1978), Leont'ev (1979), and Wittgenstein (1958), Ochs (1988) developed a model which relates activity to mental representations of language, society, and culture: Linguistic Knowledge <--> Activity <--> Sociocultural Knowledge (p. 15) 32 This model suggests that activity mediates linguistic and sociocultural knowledge and that knowledge and activity impact one another. Thus, activity plays a critical role i n the acquisition of both language knowledge and sociocultural knowledge. Individuals develop higher intellectual skills (e.g., using language appropriately i n a certain context) in part through participation i n socially and culturally organized activities. Novices are able to acquire cognitive skills through participation in these activities wi th more knowledgeable persons (Ochs, 1988). Then, activities, initially carried out by novices wi th the assistance of experts, are internalized (Wertsch, 1979). In this sense, activity is the social institutionally organized behavior or process associated wi th a set of assumptions about appropriate roles, goals, and means to be used by the participants i n that society (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Lantolf & Appel , 1994; Leont'ev, 1979; Ochs, 1988). Language socialization reflects Vygotsky's views of cognitive development; that is, language learning occurs as a result of the interaction between individuals engaged in concrete social interaction (Wertsch, 1979). Here, each social interaction or activity is assumed to occur i n a particular context wi th in a particular time frame, which greatly influences the development of each individual ' s language and cultural learning. In contrast, S L A input and interaction only superficially recognizes the influence of the social context o n ind iv idua l linguistic development (Donato, 1994). Based on this perspective, a great number of ethnographic studies have been conducted i n both fields of first language acquisition research and second 33 language acquisition research (e.g., Clancy, 1986; Crago, Annahatak & Ningiuruvik, 1993; Duff, 1995; Forman & Cazden, 1985; Heath, 1993; Ochs, 1987; Peters & Boggs, 1986; Poole, 1992; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1986; Willet, 1995). Language socialization has just begun to influence the field of research into SLA. Poole (1992), for instance, studies the kinds of cultural messages a second language teacher conveys through classroom interaction in the light of this theoretical conception. She examines specifically how classroom discourse characteristics represent cultural norms and beliefs with respect to expert accommodation of novice competence, task accomplishment, and the display of asymmetry. Although classroom observation was conducted for a relatively short period of time (approximately 10 class hours), the research concludes that some of the social messages interactionally displayed in the classrooms are consistent with those of other White Middle ^Class Americans (WMCA) asymmetrical contexts, and that the teacher's role is culturally constrained and motivated. Her analysis implies that second language contexts include cultural perspectives that have great influence on both the teaching and learning processes. Both Willet (1995) and Duff (1995) explore the socialization processes of L2 learners into English speaking environments (a mainstream classroom and an English immersion classroom) through long time observation in those classes. As a unit of analysis, both studies focus on one speech event or activity which was recurrently employed in the classrooms. "Focusing on one activity (whether an oral proficiency interview, an academic advising session, or a student's oral presentation) permits the deconstruction of well-bounded discursive events and 34 facilitates comparisons across contexts (classes, schools, cultures)" (Duff, 1995, p. 513). Observing a first-grade classroom for one year, Willet (1995) investigates the role of interactional routines and strategies in L2 learning. Her case study focuses on four children acquiring English in a mainstream first-grade classroom. She concentrates on one communicative event (Bloome & Bailey, 1992; Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982; Saville-Troike, 1982), phonics seatwork, and examines a number of interactional routines and strategies embedded in that event. The study describes how these interactional routines acted to enable L2 students to interact, establish social bonds with one another, and display their identities as competent students. Here she emphasizes the importance of understanding dynamic contexts in which those interactional routines are embedded since the nature and significance of those routines vary across cultures and groups. Reflecting the sociopolitical changes in Hungary in the late 1980s, Duff (1995) examines the transformations in educational discourse there by looking at the history lessons at secondary schools with English immersion programs. Her analysis concerns two types of speech events: the Hungarian-medium recitation, which was missing from most English-medium classes, and student presentations or lectures which were replacing the former. Through investigating these two classroom events, the study explores the change in participation patterns of the students and the teacher. The new participation patterns in the history classrooms in which students gave lectures showed that 35 the students took more responsibility for learning, speaking, reasoning, and even language/ content teaching. Focusing on one k ind of speech event, the student's ind iv idua l oral presentation, which were frequently given throughout the course, the present study applied the same language socialization framework but to discover what kinds of language and rhetorical principles Japanese ESL students in fact learned through engaging i n such a speech activity, and to explore how they were socialized into such an activity in their target language. Reflecting on the perspective of language socialization, i n the present study, this particular activity was understood as being organized i n a specific classroom context, associated wi th a set of assumptions about appropriate roles, goals, and means to be used by the instructor and students i n the class; that is, it was regarded as a process by which specific forms and cultural expertise could be communicated to cultural novices. 36 Chapter Three METHODOLOGY AND CONTEXT In this chapter, I w i l l first present a review of the literature on qualitative research methods which I employed i n this study. This somewhat exhaustive review represents my understanding of the concept of my research methodology. Then, the context of the study w i l l be introduced, followed by the procedure of data collection and analysis. Qualitative Research Design (Ethnographic Approach) The present study was conducted to explore the usefulness of public speaking and debating activities for an ESL classroom and to discover how the Japanese ESL students developed their communication skills in English by working on these activities i n a certain advanced ESL classroom. A m o n g the various activities the study focused on ind iv idua l oral presentations which were frequently conducted i n the classroom. Despite the fact that the potential of public speaking and debating for language learning i n a classroom setting has been acknowledged, almost no empirical research has been conducted i n order to explore their usefulness and to discover how learners develop their language skills by participating i n these activities. Understanding the students' learning i n an existing ESL classroom in depth was the major goal of this study; however, i n particular, I attempted to reveal what kinds of language features and rhetorical 37 patterns ESL students had i n fact learned i n a natural classroom setting and to delineate how they had developed their public speaking abilities i n their target language. In order to accomplish these attempts, qualitative research methods (ethnographic techniques) were employed. (1) Qualitative Research Methods (ethnographic techniques) Ethnography, rooted i n anthropology and sociology (Wilson, 1977), is a process, a way of studying people's behavior i n naturally occurring, ongoing settings, wi th a focus on the analytic cultural interpretation of behavior (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Hymes, 1982; Watson-Gegeo, 1988; Wolcott, 1985, 1988). The goal of ethnography is to "provide a description and an interpretive explanatory account of what people do i n a setting, the outcome of their interactions, and the way they understand what they are doing" (Watson-Gegeo, 1988, p. 576). Since an ethnographic approach enables us to study the important role of social or cultural context i n L2 teaching and learning, and since the goal of this study is to explore not only the usefulness of public speaking and debating skills for L2 learning i n a particular classroom setting, but also the socialization process of ESL students into the use of English for participation i n unfamiliar activities, it is the prime method of research. The central concern of ethnographic approach is always social or cultural context (Johnson, 1992; Nunan , 1992; v a n Lier, 1988; Wolcott, 1988). In order to pursue the primary goal of ethnography, in-depth description and interpretation of human behavior, Wi l son (1977) argues that we need to investigate social or cultural context i n the natural contexts i n which it occurs because the context has 38 a significant influence on that behavior. In other words, for instance, w h e n studying the potential of particular activities or tasks i n classrooms, observing how they can be utilized and integrated i n actual classrooms and how students react towards them is necessary. Emphasizing the importance of social context for L2 classroom research, van Lier (1988) criticizes the traits of quantitative approach for classroom research: Research into second language classrooms is to date, though there are a few exceptions, still very much conducted wi th the aim of finding cause-effect relationships between certain actions and their outcomes. This aim leads to a concern wi th strong correlations, levels of significance, definability and control of variables, and all the other requirements of scientific methods. The price that is paid for scientific control is an inevitable neglect of the social context of the interaction between teachers and learners. Without this social context it is difficult to see how classroom interaction can be understood and what cause-effect relationships, if they can ever be conclusively established, really mean. Moreover, given the holistic nature of the interpretive qualitative research approach, some ethnographers suggest the l ink between micro- (specific and circumstantial) and macro-context (broader). Researchers must consider "a l l relevant and theoretically salient micro- and macro- contextual influences that stand i n a systematic relationship to the behavior or events one is attempting to explain" (Watson-Gegeo, 1992, p. 54). Davis (1995) responds to this by saying that this means considering the construction or coconstruction of meaning at least one level up from the actual social situation being investigated. In his case study, "The Life History of a Sneaky K i d , ' Wolcott (1988) provides an account that brings a perspective to issues of broad social significance such as academic achievement, educative opportunity and so on, through an abbreviated life history related by one 20-year-old. In the present study, I also holistically investigated possible relevant contextual influences on L2 learning i n an actual ESL classroom. 39 Another major feature of ethnographic techniques is employment of emic perspective. Emic refers to "culturally based perspectives, interpretations, and categories used by members of the group under study to conceptualize and encode knowledge and to guide their own behavior" (Watson-Gegeo, 1988, p. 580). Davis (1995) argues that the fundamental difference between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies involves the reliance on emic (insider's view) versus etic (outsider's view) theory and data collection procedures. The value in the emic view point is "the potential for new, unexpected, and unpredictable understandings to emerge" (Hornberger, 1994). Spradley (1980) also emphasizes the importance of the insider's view when he suggests that the complex meaning systems which are created by certain groups of people constitute their culture. In order to understand these meanings, the ethnographer has to set aside her belief in naive realism, the almost universal belief that all people define the real world of objects, events, and living creatures in pretty much the same way (Spradley, 1980). One of my central goals was also to deeply understand the students' perceptions and interpretations of public speaking and debating as language learning activities, and of their particular ESL class which focused on developing students' public speaking skills in English. Accordingly, a pursuit of emic viewpoints characterizes this study. Furthermore, the ethnographic approach seeks the generic (regularity) in the specific (Wolcott, 1988). Heath (1982) defines the ethnographer's task as "to describe the culture of the group being studied, and to identify specific cultural patterns and structural regularities within the processes of both continuity and 40 change" (p. 35). Referring to the importance of uniqueness and particularity, v a n Lier (1988) points out the weakness of L2 acquisition (SLA) research: L2 acquisition research still largely operates on an unstated assumption that L2 development is a uniform process, wi th the result that hypotheses and models are proposed which are supposed to be universally val id. ... The search for universal tendencies is valuable and necessary. However, it must be supported and accompanied by a search for and awareness of diversity. In deed, universals can only be identified when the diversity is understood (p. 6-7). Quantitative research techniques generally adopt the psychological research trend toward statistical analyses, and control human and other extraneous variables i n order to discover universal laws (causal relationships). O n the other hand, i n the ethnographic approach, universals are established through the concrete and specific information generated through empirical studies (Davis, 1995). In this study, I attempted to describe and interpret the specific in a particular situation wi th in a particular time frame, so as to better understand events and discover the generic among them. Finally, Hammersley and Atk inson (1983) clearly articulate the value of ethnography i n its capability of developing and testing theory. Because the ethnographer has the opportunity to check out his or her understanding of the phenomena under study through the activity and perspectives of participants, the degree of misconception and preconception involved in the development of theory can be minimized . In reference to testing theory, cases that are crucial for a theory may be examined through ethnography (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). Moreover, Johnson (1992) and Davis (1995) claim that while theoretical notions help provide a framework for ethnographic inquiry at the onset of study, a goal of many ethnographers is to develop theory through the process of the research 41 (grounded theory). M y research reflects this perspective on theory. Employing the conceptual framework of language socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) as a guide, I searched for interactions, patterns of behavior, and other significant phenomena specific to the situation under study. (2) Verification (Reliabilty and Validity) The major criticisms of ethnography made by proponents of quantitative research concern the reliability and validity of such research because of its reliance on detailed description and analysis of a particular context or si tuation (Nunan, 1992). However, Johnson and Saville-Troike (1992) argue that notions of validity and reliability differ essentially i n different research traditions since the nature of inquiry also varies. They suggest that "researchers and teacher-researchers i n S L A and teaching should be able to read, assess, conduct, and benefit from research wi th an understanding of different v iews about what constitutes high-quality inquiry" (Johnson & Saville-Troike, 1992, p. 602). Reliability is the extent to which studies can be replicated (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, cited i n Nunan , 1992); that is, it is "the extent to which independent researchers can discover the same phenomena (internal reliability) and to w h i c h there is agreement on the description of the phenomena between the researcher and participants (external reliability)" (Schumacher & M c M i l l a n , 1993, p. 385). Johnson and Saville-Troike (1992) claim that "the reliability of qualitative data is always suspect because of nonrandom or unexplained sampling, and the val idi ty of interpretation is suspect because of possible observer bias and observer effects" (pp. 603-604). Concerning the objectivity of ethnography, Heath (1982) also argues 42 that anthropologists cannot be entirely objective i n their studies, and the constant goal of leaving aside value judgments is a guiding principle. The use of low inference descriptors, mult iple researchers/participant researchers, peer examination and mechanically recorded data can establish internal reliability (Nunan, 1992). External reliability, on the other hand, can be enhanced by making explicit the following factors: researcher role, informant selection, social context, data collection and analyses strategies, and analytical premises (Schumacher & M c M i l l a n , 1993; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, cited i n Nunan , 1992). According to these guidelines, I delineate the details of the methods which I employed i n the procedure section. Next, internal validity refers to "the extent to which an investigation is actually measuring what it purports to measure" (Nunan, 1992). External validity, on the other hand, means "to what extent research outcomes can be extended to other groups" (Nunan, 1992). Whi le internal validity is the major strength of ethnography (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, cited in Nunan , 1992; Schumacher & M c M i l l a n , 1993), external validity (generalizability) is generally considered its weakness (Heath, 1982). In the quantitative approach, S L A researchers attempt to control variables to gain objective data, so as to be able to generalize it beyond the ind iv idua l s participating i n the study to those throughout the population from which the data was drawn (Davis, 1995). Since notions of validity differ substantially i n different research traditions (Johnson & Saville-Troike, 1992), validity must be approached differently i n qualitative research. N u n a n (1992) makes an argument that for the ethnographic researcher wishing to generalize beyond the context i n 43 which the data was collected, external validity is particularly problematic, as the procedures assigned to experimental and controlled conditions are generally irrelevant. Johnson and Saville-Troike (1992) claim: In qualitative research, judgments of validity focus primarily on the interpretation of findings: on the extent to which such interpretations adequately account for observations in relation to relevant contextual factors, min imize potential researcher bias, and provide explanatory coherence wi th in a larger theoretical frame, (p. 603) Rather than seeking generalizability, ethnography seeks validity i n terms of comparability and transferability. Schumacher and M c M i l l a n (1993) define comparability (transferability) as "the degree to which the research design is adequately described so that researchers may use the study to extend the findings to other studies" (p. 394). To establish comparability (transferability), qualitative researchers need to describe the extent of typicality of the phenomenon, the degree to which it may be compared or contrasted along relevant dimensions wi th other phenomena (Schumacher & M c M i l l a n , 1993). Reminding us of the major characteristics of ethnographic approach, Davis (1995) writes: A strength of qualitative studies is that they allow for an understanding of what is specific to a particular group, that is, what can not possibly be generalized wi th in and across populations. O n the other hand, the grounded theory established by interpretive qualitative studies ... potentially allows for transfer to a wide range of cultures and social situations. Related to the generalizability/ transferability issue is the notion of universals. In interpretive qualitative studies, universals are established through the concrete and specific grounded theories generated through empirical studies, (p. 441) Such transferability/comparability can be achieved by providing a thick description of the specificity or uniqueness of a group under study. Prolonged engagement, persistent observation and triangulation (Davis, 1995) have also been considered strong tactics to establish research credibility i n 44 qualitative studies. In particular, triangulation, obtaining information from multiple sources, methods, and investigators rather than relying solely on one, is valued since it can reduce observer or interviewer bias (Johnson, 1992; Wolcott , 1988). LeCompte and Goetz (1984) claim: Triangulation prevents the investigator from accepting too readily the validity of ini t ial impressions; it enhances the scope, density, and clarity of constructs developed during the course of the investigation. It also assists i n correcting biases that occur when the ethnographer is the only observer of the phenomenon under investigation, (p. 11) In order to ensure the credibility of the present study, I employed mul t ip le methods i n data collection: questionnaire, formal and informal interviews, prolonged classroom observation, and collecting classroom handouts. I w i l l discuss these methods i n detail i n the procedure section. Context The present study used pseudonyms for the research site (school) and a l l participants (both the instructor and students) for ethical considerations (Burgess, 1984; Schumacher & M c M i l l a n , 1993). (1) The Research Location This study was conducted at an English language institution called B.C. Institute (BCI), which is located on a campus of a large university i n B.C., Canada. The Institute was established i n 1969, and hundreds of students from all over the wor ld attend this institution every year. The majority of them are post-secondary or adult learners from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico and Quebec. BCI offers 45 immersion programs, e.g., Academic Preparation and Communica t ion , intensive programs including Writer Intensive English, English wi th Canadians, Summer Intensive English and International Business English; and professional programs such as International Business English and English for Engl ish Teachers. In each program, university students acting as Cultural Assistants (CAs) accompany BCI students not only i n classes but also i n a variety of seasonal activities such as whale watching, skiing, horseback riding, canoeing, barbecues and so on. Moreover, this institution arranges accommodation for students w h o want to immerse themselves i n the culture and customs of Canada: homestay or campus accommodation. The immersion program, which provides full- and part-time Engl ish language training for elementary to advanced levels, offers 12-week sessions i n September, January and A p r i l , and a six-week summer session i n July. There are various kinds of classes, e.g., Newspaper, Business English, Academic Reading, i n this program, categorized into communication courses and academic preparation courses. According to their interests, students can choose classes from a wide range of academic, business and other language content and language ski l l courses. A t the beginning of each session, students take wri t ten and oral tests which determine the appropriate level and area of study for each indiv idual . Each class is 100 minutes long and is held every day from Monday to Thursday. The first class starts at 8: 30 am, the second class at 10: 30 am, and the third class at 1: 30 pm. Most students take two or three classes at each session. Friday is allotted for independent study called Directed Independent Study; special Friday-only classes are offered, and each student can work on his or her 46 weak areas, e.g., reading, listening, T O E F L skills and so forth or can choose any class based on his or her interests. O n weekends or after school, students are free to join various activities or events which are planned by C A s . Some students take consecutive sessions and continue studying at BCI for one or more years. The location that was intensively observed i n this study was the 'Advanced Public Speaking and Debating Class,' one of the communica t ion courses. This course, which had started eight years before this study was conducted, was designed to acquaint the student w i t h a wide variety of speaking skills, specifically using English in the context of ind iv idua l presentations, meetings, discussions, and debates. The assumption of this study was that activities such as presentation, debate, and panel discussion could provide opportunities for ESL learners (particularly for upper-intermediate or advanced level students) to better improve their English communication skills. Since such an existing class dealt wi th all these activities, it was sufficient for the purpose of this research. (2) Participants Participants were selected based on a combination of purposeful sampling strategies, i.e., site selection and intense-case sampling (McMi l l an & Schumacher, 1993) rather than probability sampling. The Advanced Public Speaking and Debating Class investigated consisted of 12 students: 6 Japanese (5 females, 1 male), 4 Koreans (3 females, 1 male), 1 Quebecois (1 male) and 1 Taiwanese (1 female). They were post-secondary students or adults. Since they were placed i n an advanced level class, most of them said that they d id not experience any 47 particular difficulties i n everyday English conversation. Al though all of the students i n the class participated i n the present study, I later selected only Japanese students as participants for this paper i n order to intensively examine the characteristics or cases of a particular group: M a k i (female), Masayo (female), N o r i k o (female), Yasuko (female), Yoshimi (female), and Atsushi (male) (These are all fictitious names). I introduce these Japanese students' English language backgrounds and personal goals i n this class i n the following sections. The instructor, K e v i n (fictitious name), who taught this class and also participated i n this project, was a Canadian male. He himself had developed this class i n this institution eight years before this study was conducted. According to h im, when he was teaching a social issue discussion class eight years before this study, one of the Japanese male students who was a medical doctor said that he was not satisfied wi th just discussing something, he wanted to learn how to organize ideas and present them i n front of a group of people. This was a beginning. Consulting books and other sources, K e v i n has developed his o w n teaching materials for this class. A t each session, three or four public speaking and debating classes are usually offered, and are taught by two or three instructors. He also gives advice or suggestions to other public speaking and debating class teachers. The Public Speaking and Debating Class now seems to be very popular among intermediate and advanced level students at BCI, even though it is k n o w n to require very hard work and enthusiasm. 48 Participants' English Language Backgrounds Through a questionnaire and formal and informal ind iv idua l interviews, the participants' English language backgrounds and personal goals i n the Public Speaking and Debating Class were investigated. Except Masayo, all the students had completed regular high school academic programs or universities i n Japan. Since English education i n Japanese public schools generally starts at the j un io r high level, all of them had studied English as a foreign language for about eight or nine years, including two or three years at college or university. However , English curricula i n Japan still tend to be grammar-oriented and many students cannot speak English even after finishing high school. Masayo is currently a student i n the fourth year at university, majoring i n English Literature. She took one year's leave of absence from school i n order to study English i n Canada. W h e n this research was conducted, she had been i n Canada for eight months. She had never l ived or studied abroad unt i l she came to Canada. She had already taken two previous sessions, summer and fall, at BCI. Therefore, this winter was the third session for her. M a k i had been i n Canada for thirteen months and had taken two previous sessions, summer and fall, at BCI. Before she started studying at BCI, she went to another English school i n B C , Canada. She had never l ived or studied abroad before. ' Nor iko had been i n Canada for nine months and had also taken three previous sessions, spring, summer and fall , at BCI. A t college i n Japan, she majored i n English Literature and also took an English teaching certificate 49 program for the junior high or high school level. She had studied English i n Ireland for one month i n her college days. Yasuko had been i n Canada for nine months and had taken three previous sessions, spring, summer and fall, at BCI. She had never l ived or studied abroad before she came to Canada. Yosh imi had been i n Canada for one year and had taken three previous sessions, spring, summer and fall, at BCI. She had never l ived or studied abroad before, either. Atsushi had been i n Canada for five months and had taken two preceding sessions, summer and fall, at BCI. Al though he had never l ived or studied abroad before, he had opportunities to speak English at work i n Japan. From time to time, he needed to do presentations i n English to sell company products. H e sometimes joined English classes at his company which emphasized communication wi th native speakers of English. Personal Goals i n the Public Speaking and Debating Class Except for Yoshimi , this was the first time for all the Japanese students to take this course. Yosh imi had taken this class wi th the same instructor in the last fall session. According to her, she took this class again because she thought it was very useful for improving her English speaking skills. W h e n asked about their goals i n this class, most students answered that through this course they wanted to become accustomed to speaking English i n front of a group of people, and to become fluent and confident English speakers. A s the class proceeded, their goals gradually became more concrete and specific; for instance, since the Engl ish 5 0 levels of their classmates were quite advanced, they began to want to learn more new vocabulary and expressions, not only through their instructor but also through their classmates. Both M a k i and Atsushi set their goals on studying at post-secondary or graduate schools i n Nor th Amer ica , while Nor iko said that her goal was to become an English teacher. Yasuko said that her goal was to be a translator. Masayo and Yosh imi gave me more general responses; both of them aimed to improve their English communicat ion skills and to speak English logically and fluently. P r o c e d u r e Employing an ethnographic approach, the present research was conducted i n an ESL classroom, Public Speaking and Debating Class, i n natural instructional settings. Data collection methods employed i n this study included questionnaire, classroom observation, formal and informal interviews of students and instructor, examination of instructional materials and handouts i n the class. A l though analysis and data collection are mutually interdependent i n ethnographic research (Johnson, 1992), I discuss data collection procedures and analysis individual ly i n the following sections to clarify the methods uti l ized i n this study. 51 (1) Data Colection Questionnaire Questionnaires were filled out by students once at the beginning of the session. They were administered to obtain each student's background information, particularly information on his or her English experiences (see Appendix 1). Whi le a few questions i n the questionnaire, such as checklist items, took a closed format, most of them were open-ended. A l l the students, inc lud ing the six Japanese, answered questions i n English. Classroom Observation I observed the class every day (from Monday to Thursday) from the beginning to the end of the winter session for three months (Jan. 8th ~ M a r c h 28th, 1996). The class usually started at 10: 30 am and finished at 12: 10 pm. There was no break i n the middle. I observed the class for a total of 47 days. O n the first day (Jan. 8th), without giving them details of the reason I was there, the instructor of the class introduced me to the students very briefly, saying that I was once one of the students of his class, and would be sitting i n their class for a while. For the first three days, I observed the class and took notes from time to time without using an audio-recorder for ethical reasons. A t the end of the third day, however, the instructor gave me time to describe my research and give assurances of confidentiality and anonymity to the students, and I officially received their agreement to participate i n my research. Al though the students as wel l as the instructor warmly accepted me f rom the very beginning, to maintain an attitude of respect (Hammersley & A t k i n s o n , 52 1983) towards the classroom, and to reduce disruption as much as possible (Burgess, 1983), I observed the class unobtrusively. O n various occasions, the instructor also assured me that my presence in his class d id not at all effect his teaching or the students' learning. M y role, as perceived by them, was not only that of observer but also that of kindred spirit since I was a former student of the course and a k ind of ESL student just like them; occasionally, the students and I could discuss similar experiences and difficulties we had gone through w h e n learning English as a foreign or second language. Almost every day the class started and finished punctually, although it sometimes ended a few minutes late if the activity or topic demanded. Dur ing classroom observation, I took fieldnotes i n English, focusing on the students socialization processes into activities such as presentation, panel discussion and debate. Since the goal of this study was to obtain a full picture of the students' learning in this particular advanced ESL classroom, I also investigated what kinds of tasks or activities were uti l ized i n order for students to become accustomed to speaking English i n public, what kinds of language and rhetorical principles were introduced, what students' reactions towards those tasks and language aspects were, and whether or not there were any cultural constraints implicit in students' oral performances when working on public speaking and debating activities. I almost always sat i n the back of the room facing the instructor and behind the students although, since the desks and chairs i n the class were arranged i n a circle and students were facing each other, I could see some of their faces from my seat. 53 In addition to the fieldnotes, I occasionally audio-recorded the classroom interactions whenever the class engaged in tasks aimed at improving their presentation, panel discussion and debate skills. However, I did not video-tape classes to avoid possible distraction caused by it. Instead, since the students themselves video-taped their individual presentations, panel discussions, and debates whenever they conducted those activities (usually once a week), I was able to borrow their tapes and, later, with their permission, examine them. As the class proceeded, the students appeared to become more and more comfortable with my presence, and frequently talked to me about their class, instructor, their English learning and so forth. I also took notes of what they mentioned afterwards, and every day after observation, I wrote a research journal reflecting on what I saw in the class, which also included their comments. Interviews Individual interviews with the instructor and each student were conducted twice. The interviews with Japanese students were conducted in Japanese, and those with the instructor in English. The interviews basically consisted of open-ended questions which emerged from every day observations; this format gave informants an opportunity to develop their answers outside a structured format (Burgess, 1983). The interviews were conducted either in the classroom after class or a cafeteria, according to the preference of the participants. The interview normally lasted 20 to 30 minutes; however, from time to time, 54 some students spent more than one hour. A l l the interviews were audio-taped wi th the participants' permission. I administered the first interview one month into the winter session. I interviewed two or sometimes three students per day. For the first month , the class mainly focused on ind iv idua l presentation skills. Therefore, questions were posed to elicit what they thought about their presentations and their class so far, and what they had learned through working on presentation skills and so forth. Moreover, I asked a few questions pertaining to the init ial questionnaire responses to elicit more detail about their English experiences. O n the other hand, questions to the instructor were about the story of the founding of this particular class, the goals of the class, the students' improvement so far. The second interview was conducted at the end of the session. T w o students were usually interviewed per day. Since the session was close to its end, and since students had already experienced not only ind iv idua l presentations but also panel discussions and debates, questions to students concerned their thoughts about those activities, the class as a whole and improvements i n their English. Questions to the instructor as wel l focused on his impressions of students' learning processes i n the class so far. (2) Analysis Qualitative research involves the simultaneous collection and analysis of data (Burgess, 1984). Atk inson and Hammersley (1983) claim that data analysis "begins i n the pre-fieldwork phase, in the formulation and clarification of research problems, and continues into the process of wri t ing" (p. 174). Identifying 55 i emergent themes and patterns of generalization across multiple sources of data (Davis, 1995), the present study conducted analysis inductively throughout the course of data collection and the process of writing. The observations, information from questionnaires, formal and informal interviews wi th the instructor and students, instructional materials and research journal were a l l included i n the inductive analysis done for this study. That is, each research phase provided me wi th an opportunity for reflexive analysis, which according to Hammersley and Atk inson (1983) transforms private response into potential public knowledge. That way, I could further develop my research design, pursue emergent themes, and systematically continue data collection. The major concern of this study was one recurrent speech event, ind iv idua l oral presentation. "The selection of a specific speech event or activity (or task) as a unit of analysis ... is common among scholars ..." (Duff, 1995, p. 513). Al though the main focus was a specific speech activity such as an i n d i v i d u a l presentation, analysis of the structure of events and tasks i n the classroom was also conducted i n order to deeply understand the students' learning, since an entire lesson comprising numerous activities was organized to facilitate the development of students' public speaking skills. Doyle and Carter (1984) argue that the study of classroom structure reveals "how events in classrooms are arranged and interrelated i n time and space and how organization affects learning" (p. 129). Therefore, I briefly examined what kinds of events and tasks were employed i n the class and how they were interrelated wi th each other to help students develop their public speaking skills. 56 The analysis reported here focused on six Japanese students. Throughout the session, 5 ind iv idua l presentations, 2 panel discussions, 1 debate, and 1 smal l issue discussion were held. In order to deeply understand the socialization process of students into a particular speech event such as i n d i v i d u a l presentations, a total of 30 oral performances of Japanese students were transcribed, and were coded based on the technical aspects that the instructor had introduced and emphasized in class. The language and rhetorical themes w h i c h had emerged through the course were as follows: introduction (hook), organizational principles of presentation, transitional devices, sentence patterns and expressions for giving opinions and making arguments. Al though the importance of voice projection and body language (eye contact, gesture, etc.) had also been repeatedly emphasized by the instructor throughout the course, the study d id not pay special attention to them, since the main focus was students' verbal language. Moreover, whereas the study focused on the students' oral performances, it d id not look at changes i n their pronunciation, either, because the instructor rarely paid attention to it unless it caused misunderstanding. Apply ing ethnographic analysis of discourse (Poole, 1990), which emphasizes the role of culture in organizing the kinds of interactional sequences, I explored context-specific discourse patterns in the students' ind iv idua l oral presentations. The notion of contrastive rhetoric (Hinds, 1980, 1983, 1987; Takano, 1993) as a guide to the k ind of rhetoric to be found i n expository texts was also util ized to examine their discourse. Chapter Four 57 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY In this chapter, I w i l l first present a description of the structure of events and activities i n the classroom. Then, I w i l l delineate how the Japanese ESL students learned the language features and rhetorical principles of i n d i v i d u a l presentation which the instructor taught during the first six weeks of the course, corresponding to each of these language and rhetorical aspects. Structure of Events and Activities in the Classroom This section w i l l present a brief description of the following themes: (1) main events in the classroom; (2) tasks or activities for developing presentation skills; and (3) ind iv idua l oral presentations. (1) Main Events in the Classroom The major events conducted i n this advanced public speaking and debating class from Jan. 8th to March 28th, 1996 were sequenced as i n Figure 4.1. The order of events, except those of the last week, had already been determined by the instructor, Kev in , at the beginning of the session. A l l of the events except the discussions i n the twelfth week were video-taped by the students themselves. 58 F I G U R E 4.1 Public Speaking & Debating (Main Events) 1st week Informative Presentation I 2nd week Informative Presentation II 3rd week Problem-Solving Presentation 4th week Persuasive Presentation 1 6th week Persuasive Presentation II (with question period) (6 students) Persuasive Presentation 11 (with question period) (6 students) 8th week Panel Discussion ('Wife Abuse') 10th week Debate ('Life extension technology is being overused.') 12th week Small Issue Discussion Small Issue Discussion Panel Discussion During the first six weeks, each student worked on ind iv idua l presentations. For each presentation the student chose his/her own topic, d id research on it, organized the information and d id a presentation of six to seven minutes i n front of the class. Basically, topics could be anything according to his/her o w n interests. Later most students said that familiarity and accessibility were the m a i n factors influencing their choice of topics. Usually they had one week to prepare. O n the day of the formal presentation, usually at the end of each week (Wednesday or Thursday), the whole class was spent on it. Students performed one after another. From the seventh week, they started to engage in group activities such as panel discussions and debates. Since students had become accustomed to speaking i n front of a group of people, these collaborative tasks appeared to be more exciting than difficult for them. Moreover, whenever conducting a formal debate and a panel discussion, the class invited other classes to watch. Finally, in the last week, small issue discussions i n which one of the students played the role of leader, and a panel discussion, were conducted. 59 (2) Tasks or Activities for Developing Presentation Skils Many tasks or activities i n each class were organized to assist students to skillfully and confidently perform the major events mentioned above. In this class, no textbook was uti l ized and most instructional materials were handouts from Kev in . In order to capture a whole picture of students' learning, a brief discussion of everyday classroom activities or tasks would be helpful. However , since the major concern of the present study was language and the rhetorical aspects of ind iv idua l presentations, this section w i l l focus only on tasks or activities which were directly pertinent to the development of students' presentation skills (see Figure 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). In Figure 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4,1 italicize the tasks which were relevant to the language and rhetorical themes this study focused on. I w i l l discuss them i n detail later. Figure 4.2 lists the tasks employed i n the class during the first two weeks when students were working on informative presentations. Dur ing this period of time, K e v i n particularly emphasized the importance of voice projection and body language (posture, hand gesture and eye contact), while he introduced some basic organizational skills related to presentation, e.g., brainstorming, topic narrowing, outlining. Therefore, whenever the students conducted i m p r o m p t u presentations and formal ind iv idua l presentations, K e v i n was likely to pay attention not only to the content and organization of presentations, but also to the "performance" aspects of presentation. 60 F I G U R E 4.2 Tasks i n the First and Second weeks Impromptu Presentation (class or group impromptu) This activity was frequently conducted. A student made an impromptu presentation on a topic provided by the instructor. Spontaneity of speech was required. The instructor often interjected comments or advice concerning presentation skills and contents. Brainstorming Skills (group or class discussion) The instructor demonstrated how to brainstorm the ideas by using an example topic. Asking several questions on it, he elicited main and supporting ideas from students. Developing Self-esteem Based on handouts created by the instructor, students discussed a variety of concepts, such as security and self-hood in groups or whole class. Video Review The class watched videos of the previous presentations. Students volunteered their tapes to be watched in a class, and discussed on important aspects of the presentations in whole class. Topic Narroxving Skills Students practiced narrowing topic, making topic statement and brainstorming main ideas with someone's topic in whole class. Outlining The instructor explained outlining and handed out an 'outlining form' sheet. Hook (Introduction) The instructor explained how to make introductions more impressive, and introduced the idea of Hook (attention-getter). Voice Emphasis The instructor explained the importance of pauses and other ways of emphasizing words. They practiced by reading sentences aloud. Visuals Visuals can make an impact on the audience. The instructor introduced props and statistics. Figure 4.3 lists the main tasks conducted i n the third week when students were preparing for a problem-solving presentation. Al though K e v i n still paid attention to students' voice emphasis, body language and so forth, he started focusing more on the contents and organizational devices of their presentations at this time. For instance, when Yasuko d id an impromptu presentation i n front of the class at the beginning of the third week, he interrupted her to ask several questions, trying to elicit ideas, and suggested that she keep her speech on track by stating her main idea, defining it, narrowing it down and providing examples. 61 FIGURE 4.3 Tasks in the Third week Impromptu Presentation (class or group impromptu) This activity was often employed in the same way as mentioned in Figure 4.2. Note Taking The instructor introduced the following techniques when reading or looking for information: highlighting, circling, underlining, and photocopying. Library Research The instructor explained how to do library research by computer. Organizing Information for Problem-Solving The instructor explained the relationship between cause, effect, problem and solution, and a way of organizing information for problem-solving presentation. Transition Words The importance of using various transition words was emphasized. In this week, transitional expressions used when adding a point, and introducing a contrast or qualification were introduced. Role Play Two or three students volunteered or were nominated to play the roles and discuss a problem which the instructor gave them. Developing Self-esteem Affiliation. Positive Visualization Developing a relaxed and comfortable demeanor as a goal of positive visualization. The instructor explained the importance of positive visualization. Making Questions for Problems The instructor created a problematic situation, and had students think about what kind of questions they needed to ask in order to solve the problem. Charade Gesture Game — Developing body language was the primary goal. Voice Emphasis The instructor explained that even intonation and pausing can give the audience a picture of what you will talk about. He had students read aloud a verse from 'Alice in Wonderland'. Finally, Figure 4.4 displays the major tasks which were employed in the fourth and fifth weeks, when students were working on persuasive presentations. Since the principal goal of this period was to make the students' speeches more persuasive and assertive, a variety of expressions for giving opinions and arguments were taught. Moreover, since one purpose of a speaker giving a persuasive presentation is to persuade the audience to do something, and since this presentation included a question period, the importance of considering audience was emphasized. 62 FIGURE 4.4 Tasks in the Fourth and Fifth weeks Impromptu Presentations (class or group impromptu) After the presenter spoke on the issue the instructor suggested, the other students were encouraged to ask him/her questions, since persuasive presentations would include question periods. Role Play (class or group) Two or three students were given a situation and roles in which they needed to persuade each other. Charade This activity was used as a warm-up at the beginning of class. Developing body language seemed to be the goal. Video Review During this period of time, video review was often conducted. The focuses of reviewing tended to be voice projection, posture, and sometimes vocabulary (transition words, everyday English etc.). Advertising The instructor showed students a couple of advertisements (pictures), and emphasized the importance of imagining and thinking about audience when developing persuasive presentations. Persuasive Organization The instructor introduced a way of organizing information for persuasive presentations. Sentence Patterns The instructor encouraged students to use a variety of sentence patterns, and showed them several examples. Listening & Asking Questions Being an active listener was emphasized, and methods of listening actively were introduced by the instructor. Stating Opinions (Opinions & Arguments) Ways of giving opinions, stating arguments, disagreeing with an argument and so on were suggested. 20 Questions Students practiced making closed and open questions. (Persuasive presentations included question periods.) The tasks or activities i n Figure 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 were all employed dur ing the first six weeks of the class to help students develop i n d i v i d u a l presentation skills. Despite the fact that all the Japanese students i n the class were at least post-secondary and some were quite mature, they all, except Atsushi, said that they had rarely experienced speaking i n public, even i n their mother tongue, and had never learned how to do it either at school or anywhere else. Atsushi sometimes needed to do presentations i n order to sell the products of his company. N o r i k o said that she had learned not only public speaking skills, but also how to collect and organize information i n this class, and that she would also be able to apply these skills even when presenting i n Japanese. Through the tasks ment ioned above, students gradually adopted the principles for conducting presentations that the instructor as an expert had provided i n class. Even after students started 63 working on group projects such as panel discussions and debates, the presentation techniques they had acquired during the first six weeks appeared to enable them to become skillful panelists and debaters. (3) Individual Oral Presentations Individual presentations were basically conducted as follows. O n the day of presentation, students sat facing each other as usual, wi th K e v i n sitting closest to the presenter, and a video camera was set up i n the center of the back of the classroom. One volunteer student became a camera person to video-tape the class. Usually, Masayo and Yasuko took turns operating the camera. According to Kev in , the video-camera was being used for a few reasons: students w o u l d become more comfortable speaking i n front of a group; they could see themselves on videotape, and learn a lot about their body language, what their voices sounded like, and see themselves as strangers see them; and they could take the videos home wi th them. A presenter went up to the front and spoke for six to seven minutes. Basically, when presenting, students were advised to take notes wi th them but neither to write whole sentences i n the notes nor to memorize whole texts. The order of the speakers was assigned on a voluntary basis or the speaker nominated the next person to speak. For the purpose of evaluation, the instructor and one classmate marked evaluation sheets for each speaker. A total of thirteen items were checked w i t h five grades such as superior (+,v/+)/ effective (y7, / - ) , and needs work (-). The thirteen items were divided into two categories: 1. The speaker — eye contact, body language / gesture, enthusiasm, fluency/t iming, voice projection, voice 64 clarity and voice emphasis; and 2. Presentation Content -- introduction, m a i n ideas, supporting details, visuals, organization and conclusion. In addition to the evaluation sheets, the instructor made some evaluative comments right after the presentation. Unl ike the relatively relaxed atmosphere of the class on non-presentation days, the atmosphere was tense from beginning to end on these days. Language Features and Rhetorical Principles of Individual Presentations This section reports on the findings of the study i n five sections: (1) H o o k (Introduction); (2) Organizational Principles of Presentation — Basic Organization, Problem-Solving Organization and Persuasive Organization; (3) Transitional Devices; (4) Sentence Patterns; and, (5) Opinions and Arguments . These five themes were the language and rhetorical aspects K e v i n had specifically introduced i n the class when students were working on i n d i v i d u a l presentations. The present study investigated the change i n Japanese students' presentational discourse and the processes these students went through, based on these five perspectives. (1) Hook (Introduction) The most dramatic change in students' introductions took place dur ing the first two weeks when they were working on informative presentations, since K e v i n explicitly taught the devices for setting up their introductions. In this 65 section, I w i l l describe how the Japanese students learned those devices and applied them to making their introductions. Every student used the same topic for the first two presentations. Regarding the first presentation conducted at the end of the first week, K e v i n advised them to feel relaxed and speak freely i n whatever way they wanted as a k ind of warm-up for the next one. N o particular suggestions for making introductions were provided i n the first week, although once when the class discussed their travel experiences i n pairs, K e v i n suggested that students should not start their speeches wi th a phrase like "I 'm going to talk about..." In their first presentations, Yasuko, M a k i and Masayo shared certain patterns i n their introductions: opening frames typically started wi th a smal l episode pertinent to the topic, followed by a declaration of intent, such as "I want (like) to talk about X " : 1. Introduction: Yasuko (Jan. 11th) Uh recently, uh - a lot of people - a lot of people take a vitamin pills, or vitamin some drinks. 1 think - it's really goodfor ourhealth, um- today uh ((looks into the notes which was put on the desk besides her)) (Instructor) OK, stop stop just a second, ((goes up to Yasuko and advises her to hold her notes with her hands)) I should take? Oh ... Uh recently a lot of people take a uh vitamin pill, umand also vitamin (x) drinks. I think uh it's a very health very heal uh very goodfor our health. Um (1.0) in Japan, we can buy a lot of kind soft drinks, name name is something - C or something D. C or D or E means vitamin A, B, C, D, (untranscribable sound). Uml think it's very good. So today uh: I wanna talk about vitamin C. Introduction: Maki (Jan. 11th) Uh: last uh last October, I fainted, at my home. It was very surprised me, because my first experience I had beenunconscious.lt was a kind of neat, butl was ((laugh)) at the same time, I was scared. I thought I was losing health. Good health, because I was proud of my - very ni good health, for a longtime. Even though 1 had really uh: hard work, or no sleep, I was fine. But as I'm getting older, I have to be very careful, or but my uh body. So I want to talk about my uh your body, and about blood vessels. 66 Introduction: Masayo (Jan. 11th) Recently the number of smokers is - uh - getting down, but it's still a lot. So - my topic is about tobacco, because we don't know about uh - about it so much. So I will say - I will give information to you from three points of view, uh: which are tobacco's ingredients, a:nd (1.5) how does it works, in human body, and last one is what effect does it cause. Yasuko and Masayo started wi th general information on their topics followed by declarations of intent: "So today uh: I wanna talk about v i tamin C," and "So - my topic is about tobacco." Maki ' s introduction, on the other hand, started wi th an episode from her own experience but again followed by a declaration of intent: "So I want to talk about my uh your body, and about blood vessels." A l t h o u g h those three students employed very similar kinds of structure for setting up their presentations, Masayo further provided the outline of her presentation after a declaration of intent: "So I w i l l say -1 w i l l give information to you from three points of view, uh: which are tobacco's ingredients, a:nd (1.5) how does it works, i n human body, and last one is what effect does it cause."1 After her presentation, K e v i n complimented her introduction as being nice and clear. For the first presentations, K e v i n basically d id not make any evaluative comments on introductions; however, to students who began their speech w i t h the announcement of a topic such as "I 'm going to talk about X , " he interjected a remark on it: 2. Introduction: Noriko (Jan. 11th) I'd like to talk about Ireland, especially (Instructor) OK. Why don't you stop about it? So whenever you start out with I'd like to talk about, today I'm going to talk about... Just talk about it. Ireland is very small country, next to located next to England.... 1 ':' signifies sound or syllable which is unusually lengthened. 67 While Noriko began her introduction with T d like to talk about Ireland," Kevin directly advised her not to start with T d like to talk about..." In the second week, he clearly discussed this matter during the classes. Both Atsushi and Yoshimi began their speeches with topic statements: 3. Introduction: Atsushi (Jan. 11th) Hi , good morning. Uh:: Aids is a maybe mostuh:: dangerousand serious - illness today. And uh some certain virus called HIV, uh human immunodeficiency virus causes Aids. Introduction: Yoshimi (Jan. 11th) The value of the - uh to be a good neighbor, - um - is according to uh - make uh - good community or society. (2.0) Neither of them provided any episodes nor any declarations of intent before or after the topic statement. After the topic statement (although Atsushi briefly gave information about the cause of Aids), both immediately got into the body of the speeches. In the second week, on the day before the second presentation, Kevin explicitly introduced the idea of "Hook" (Attention-Getter) for setting up an introduction. He handed out sheets in which Attention-Getter Options were printed. Masayo volunteered her topic, "Tobacco's ingredients are dangerous" to the class, and Kevin had the whole class practice making impressive or shocking statements by using her topic, referring to this hook idea. He emphasized the importance of relating the topic to the audience; however, he did not recommend attempting to make a joke in the introduction since it was not easy to tell an appropriate joke. Figure 4.5 is a list of "Hook" options. 68 FIGURE 4.5 Atention-Geter Options 1. Make a shocking statement. 2. Ask one or more direct questions requiring visible audience response: "Who will volunteer to describe the factors you consider in deciding which brand of car to buy?" 3. Ask one or more rhetorical questions — thought-provoking questions you do not actually expect the listener to answer: "Did you ever get so fed upat work that you wanted to tell yourbossoff?" 4. Quote a well-known person or authority. 5. Announceyour main point. 6. Tell an appropriate joke. 7. Present a story or an anecdote. 8. Refer to the occasion. 9. Present a hypothetical situation. 10. Relate a personal experience or make a self-disclosure. 11. Refer to the problem at hand, emphasizing its significance for all listeners. 12. Use a prop, visual aid, or demonstration. In addition to the idea of Hook, K e v i n suggested providing an overv iew including the topic statement and main ideas after a hook. Figure 4.6 demonstrates the structure of the introduction he suggested. FIGURE 4.6 The Structure of the Introduction 1. Introduction A. Hook B. Overview 1. Topic Statement 2. Main Ideas A l l these devices are generally recommended i n guidebooks on public speaking (e.g., Barrett, 1984; White, 1978). Al though the overview was usually omitted, the idea, "Hook," appeared to impact greatly on the students. In the second presentation, most students significantly changed their introductions: 69 4. Introduction: Yasuko (Jan. 17th) Hello. So have you ever seen this bottle? Can you see a label? Uh this is a vitamin, ((shows a couple of bottles of vitamin)) So-uh these days, uh(l.O) taking a vitamin pills and some drinking so:me vitamin drinks is getting very popular. Why those people want to - take a vitamin? Because uh many people want to be healthy, and especially women want to keep their skin beauty and young, ((laugh)) Uh:: (2.0) in Japan, uh there are somedrinks, which name is uh vita uh something C and something D. This C and D mean uh: of course uh vitamin. (1.0) So there are many kind of vitamin, I uh vitamin C, one of the most important and also familiar vitamin for us. Uh uh vitamin C is water - soluble? soluble vitamin, so it's easy easily to lost uh from our body, and we can not make vitamin C uh by ourself in our body. So we have to take - vitamin, everyday. Introduction: Maki (Jan. 17th) OK. Good morning, everybody. Uh I have two correction from my uh previous in presentation, which is one the reason because uh why 1 was fainted wasn't I was losing my blood. Because 1 didn't have enough pressure, to put push provide blood to all over the rest of my body, so that was my first correction. The second second correction, I had a very strong claim from my host mother, I called her like - host mother last time, but she thought that makes her sounds very old, and she doesn't like that, and she prefer call I call her as a friend, (xxx) as my friend. So let me start now. Uh OK. So just imagine. In the morning, you have to go somewhere else. Maybe you have to see your girlfriend, or boyfriend, and you have to goto the work. But once when you got into the car, the car doesn't start. You cannot go. So what do you do the next next step? Maybe you think about maybe you don't have enough gas in your fuel tank. Or your battery die. So you can actual look at inside of your car, and you can find what's wrong, or you can just call an engineer and he can look at your car inside actual. But think. If you have something some problem in your body, you can't see. So it's very difficult to find out. (2.0) Even though you are if you are professional medical staff, uh maybe you are doctor or nurse, but they can't exactly - maybe probably know what's wrong, but they don't know quite well. And but even though professional medical people like that, for you it's very difficult. And let me tell you something about your blood vessel. Introduction: Masayo (Jan. 17th) Do you smoke? Or do your parents smoke? Don't you ((cough)) uh how about your sisters, brothers, or your friends? (2.0) You know quite many people who enjoy smoking? But uh - you don't know or they don't know how much the tobacco is really dangerous for you or for them. So between 90 a:nd uh 95 percent of uh of all - umlungcancers - are caused by smoking. (2.5) So today I will talk about smoking, um - uh: from three points of view, which are ((cough)) tobacco's ingredients, uh really dangerous, uh ((cough)) sorry, how it works in human body, and last one is uh what effects uh does it cause. Yasuko brought some vitamin bottles and used them as props while asking rhetorical questions. Although she did not provide an outline of her presentation, she ended her introduction with the topic statement: "So we have to take - vitamin, every day." Maki first made some corrections of her previous 70 presentation before starting her actual introduction. K e v i n d id not interject any comments on such an apologetic beginning i n the middle of her speech. However, he did later, after her presentation, comment that he did not like her having begun by making "corrections." However, after some corrections, M a k i presented a hypothetical situation, paralleling engine trouble in a car wi th the human body. Masayo also began her speech wi th rhetorical questions, as Yasuko did . These ideas for introductions, asking rhetorical questions and presenting a hypothetical situation, are referred to as attention-getting options i n Kev in ' s handouts. Al though K e v i n also suggested providing an overview of the presentation following the hook, only Masayo d id it. She clearly provided the outline of her presentation, proposing three viewpoints concerning tobacco, following the opening rhetorical questions. In her case, even though she had not used any attention-getting expressions i n her first presentation, she had used an overview similar to that in her second. Nor iko , who started wi th a declaration of intent: "I'd like to talk about Ireland" i n her first presentation, used a combination of rhetorical questions and an anecdote for the introduction to her second one: 5. Introduction: Noriko (Jan. 17th) Have you heard there are country which lives uh fairy? ((She looks unsure about the pronunciation of'fairy'.)) lives in? (2.0) (Instructor) Stop. Did you understand what she said? No. I know what she said. And I didn't understand what you said. Start again. Uh especially in uh hook, or an opening, we wanna you give your main idea, make sure you say it slowly, loudly, and clearly. So everybody understand, especially the word they may not know. Fairy. (Instructor) Fairies. Have you heard 71 (Instructor) Louder. Have you heard the country uh have you heard there are country fairy lives? (1.0) Uh six years ago, 1 heard I heard in Ireland fairy uh - there are country fairy lives in. That is Ireland. (1.5) And I wanted to go there, and fortunately I could go there, - four years ago, I I had been there for one month, with my Irish family. The reason is - the reason changed to learn English for my parents because my my parents paid me for paid me, so I lied because 1 want to study English> But I could go there, and I loved Ireland very much. I loved to hang around Down Town of Dublin. Dublin is capital city of Ire Ireland. A:nd I love I love Ireland very much because of people and atmosphere - of the city. Nor iko employed the idea of Hook, and ended wi th the topic statement: " A : n d I love I love Ireland very much because of people and atmosphere - of the city." Atsushi and Yosh imi also changed their openings significantly: 6. Introduction: Atsushi (Jan. 17th) Uh first, uh I have to apologize all of them, (Instructor) OK. Stop. Because, (Instructor) Don't start with apology. No, no no no. This is a presentation. ((Looking at the instructor.)) (Instructor) OK. You sure (xxx). [Let's start again. [Because I can not attend this class any more because yesterday doctor told me you're possibly cancer. ((His classmates were surprised.)) If I say so, ((laugh)) everybody feel something, but how how did you felt? But please change the cancer to - Aids. How do you, Kevin, I'm sorry, I'm possibly Aids carrier. Everybody's so afraid. A:nd uh: (1.0) have something different ways, -reeling - cancer and Aids. This is so dangerous. Introduction: Yoshimi (Jan. 17th) Have you felt the isolation since you've be here? ((looking around the audience)) Yes? ((laugh)) Uh: (1.5) usually, you attend the some kind of group, for example, a: school or company, and so on. A:nd even though it will be happen to you in your daily life. Atsushi made a shocking statement at the beginning: " U h first, u h I have to apologize all of them, ... because I can not attend this class any more because yesterday doctor told me you're possibly cancer. followed by a rhetorical question. Interestingly, since Atsushi abruptly started wi th an apology, K e v i n interrupted and attempted to stop h im, not realizing it was a part of his shocking 72 opening. Yoshimi asked a direct question, looking around the audience to elicit some responses from them. However, neither of them provided an overview of their presentation or a topic statement or stated their main idea after the hook. Pointing out their lack of topic statements and outlines, K e v i n later advised them to make their main ideas and organization of information clearer. In excerpt 7, for example, K e v i n commented that the main topic in Atsushi 's presentation was not clear. 7. Excerpt from Evaluative Commentsof Instructor to Atsushi's Presentation Kevin: ... What was his main topic? ((he asked the class)) Yasuko: Aids? Kevin: Aids is not. Too general. Yasuko: Vaccine. Kevin: Aids vaccine. OK. I think that it is needed to belittle bit clear, (xx) main topic. ... Throughout the course, K e v i n constantly gave students feedback on their introductions. It was noticeable that as a result of Kevin 's explicit instruction, inc luding scaffolded interaction wi th h im, the Japanese ESL students improved the introductions of their presentations. In the second week of the course, K e v i n emphasized the importance of employing a "Hook," not being apologetic, and providing an overview of the speech. Particularly, "Hook" seemed to impact greatly on the students. Yasuko later said in her interview that she had thought that providing a declaration of intent i n the introduction was enough to attract the interest of the audience unt i l she learned "Hook." Al though throughout the course the students except Masayo rarely provided an overview, most of them consistently applied the "Hook" to their introductions. In the next section, I w i l l look at how the students learned the organizational principles and applied them to their presentations. 73 (2) Organizational Principles of Presentation During the first six weeks when students were working on i n d i v i d u a l presentations, K e v i n introduced three methods of organizations, corresponding to three kinds of presentations: informative, problem-solving, and persuasive. The primary difference between the methods of organization was related more to paragraph content than to any strictly structural principle. In this section, I w i l l describe how the Japanese students learned these three methods and applied them to their presentations. However, since I have already discussed the introductions of the presentations i n the previous section, I w i l l here present and discuss only the body and conclusion of the students' presentation discourse. Basic Organization K e v i n taught basic organizational principles during the first two weeks. In the first week when students were working on the first informative presentation, K e v i n d id not explicitly introduce a format of organizing ideas or information. However, whi le presenting the technique of brainstorming (choosing a topic, brainstorming it, choosing main ideas and priorit izing them), he emphasized that the content of the presentation should consist of several ma in ideas and details supporting them. Dur ing class time, from time to time he demonstrated how to brainstorm ideas for their presentation topics. Students also engaged i n this process wi th h im. For instance, once K e v i n divided a class into four groups and had each group consider what k ind of things make them happy. In each group, students generated ideas, made a list, chose the three most 74 important things from them, and prioritized them. Whi le students were getting used to dealing wi th their topics, main ideas and supporting details through this k ind of task, K e v i n referred to neither introduction nor conclusion. The body of Noriko 's first presentation consisted of five main ideas, followed by a small concluding remark and a formulaic expression of closure such as "Thank you for listening" (Excerpt 8). A l though K e v i n d id not pay attention to the conclusions i n the first presentations, the following excerpts include them since I w i l l discuss how they changed later. 8. Body and Condusiondst Informative Presentation): Noriko (Jan. 11th) Ireland is very small country, next to located next to England. I've been there I had been there for - one month, (1.0) maybe four years ago -to study English. And Ireland is surrounded ocean, sol think weather is similar to, similar with uh in Vancouver. So the - winter is not so cold, and - in in the winter, there are lot of rain, but rain raise very good green grass, grass? And also I can I can't forget to tell you about green for Irish people. I think green is very (1.0) important color for Irish people. Because in Dublin bus is green, train is green and also mail box is green. Especially, in the March, they have - festival, the name is St. Patrick's Day. At that day, everybody uh a lot of people paint their face, with green paint, and they they temporary dye their color with green. And - also -shopping window painted by green paint, and - and also in McDonald, they sell green shakes. And in a pubthey sell green beer. I don't know I didn't taste, (1.0) but at that day I've - been there and ((laugh)) (Instructor) Sounds good. I saw the parade, it was very - very fantastic. There are lot of people from Ame United States, Canada, and other place. Because a lot of uh -uh - I don't know uh before, a lot of Irish people immigrant United States and other place. So they came came back to Ireland and they play some a lot of be - a lot of things. And also at that day a lot of people wear green- green clothes, (1.0) so- it was very fun. (1.0) And I - think Irish people is very kind. I think (1.0) better than -Canadian ((small laugh)) (Instructor) yeah I think probably - friendlier. Yeah, very friendly. Uh I had -1 had lost uh way my way in Ireland a lot, but I I had never been in trouble. Because I asked - I can ask everybody, and they are very kind. For example, one day, I I completely lost my way to: I should go there. It's airplane company. I. Main Idea: Location and weather of Ireland Supporting Details: 1. location 2. weather II. Main Idea: Green for Irish people Supporting Details: 1. Everything is green. 2. St. Patrick's Day - Green decoration — Lots of visitors III. Main Idea: Irish people are kind. Supporting Details: 1. When Noriko lost her way 2. discount at shops 75 And I asked one business man, "Where is where is the company?" But he he didn't know, but he went back to his company, uh his office, and he looked yellow page, and look find out the telephone number, and he phoned the place and he but and he asked the address and he take me to the place. It's it's not special. A lot of people - take care of me very well, and a lot of shops give me discount because I'm student of other country, that's all, sol was very comfortable in Ireland. So an also they are very (1.0) cheerful, and because on Friday, a lot of IV. Main Idea: people go went out to - have a beer at pub, - and they dance traditional Irish people are cheerful, dance, and they play music traditional music, so I had very good time Supporting Details: in Ireland, but ex except food. 1. At pub (dancing, music) Because they eat a lot of potato. Everyday is potato. So ((laugh)) I V. Main Idea: think (1.0) it's - quite - difficult to get along with the food, but it's Difficult to get along better if s (x) than Vancouver. with food. Supporting Details: 1. potato But I think Ireland is very beautiful and romantic, and (1.0) a lot of Conclusion myths, (1.0) I don'tknowl don't know exactly about that, but-1 want -1 want find out about myths of Ireland. Thank you for listening. Each main idea was supported wi th one or two details as K e v i n had suggested; however, the amount of information i n each paragraph was not always balanced. In this excerpt, at the end of the presentation (especially main idea IV and V) , she d id not provide many details for each main idea. Whi le K e v i n d id not particularly refer to this point, he advised Nor iko to add more personal experiences to the general information about Ireland. In the conclusion, she stated what she thought about Ireland i n one sentence, "But I think Ireland is very beautiful and romantic, ..." She then raised another topic, 'myth, ' which she wanted to explore from then on. Al though this study d id not aim to examine L l interference i n L2 text, her sudden raising of a new topic at the end of her speech can be assumed to be one of the characteristics of Japanese rhetoric, "ten." Japanese paragraphing allows the writer to turn the idea to the subtheme w h i c h does not have to be directly connected to the main theme (Hinds, 1983). Moreover, the conclusion does not need to be decisive. 76 The body of Atsushi's first presentation was composed of two main ideas, followed by a conclusion and a formulaic closing expression, "Thank you": 9. Body and Condusiondst Informative Presentation): Atsushi (Jan. 11th) And: (x) reported (x) last Autumn, the about fifteen years ago, uh in Australia, there is a serious, there was a serious uh: incident. Uh red cross - supply the: Aids contaminated blood to the hospital. And: accidentally, that uh blood was transfused to the some uh several patient, a a actually Aids patient. Uh the doctor and everybody were so surprised and afraid about it Aids, and they - have - tra they have been tracking that uh client. And: but fifteen about fifteen years (1.0) later andnow,last year, all orthem haven't come down by Aids. They are all healthy. And: researcher find they have no HIV virus, of invalid. And all of the all of them developed uh strong uh - immune system against HIV HIV - infection. Uh current research showed uh they were - infected by the you know that's a natural mutant - of the HIV. Weaken - uh weak weak and: uh: that that virus have a some defective gene. And: this result are leads us the (1.0) ex expectation, for the (2.0) Aids vaccine. To develop Aids vaccine. The effective one. But the there is still - three big problem as (x). One is have - still uh that one - vaccine is dangerous. The experiment using the ape - showed that kind of vaccine is very effective for the adult ape. Adult adult monkey. But the it's the still dangerous for (1.0) children. Children got a real Aids - by that - vaccine. And next one is more serious. It's a effective to uh: to protect a healthy man - from the infection of the HIV. But not not effect to cure Aids patient or Aids carrier. And the third that that two uh problem result uh leads us to the third dangerous point. So if you use this vaccine, doctor injected HIV virus to the healthy guys. (2.0) So but the we still have a lot of problem, uh I think this is very -hopeful and: what does comenextuh maybe that uh more effective one or more safe, vaccine. So I hope the a a any day uh someday that Aids becomes the curable (3.0) sick, (1.0) sickness like as a smallpox of the long time ago. Thank you. I. Main Idea: Aids Vaccine Supporting Details: 1. the incident in Australia II. Main Idea: Problems in developing Aids vaccine Supporting Details: 1. only effective with adult apes 2. only effective in protecting healthy men 3. HTV virus dangerous to the healthy man Condusion Each main idea was supported wi th one or more detail. K e v i n later commented that his main topic was clear, but he needed to have talked a little bit more about things that were happening i n Aids research: "... Like how do they why do they think that this infected blood? Because of usually infected blood gives a person Aids , H I V . U h so why (xxxx). That was a little bit unclear. ..." Atsushi concluded his speech by saying he expected that Aids would be a curable disease one day. 77 Table 4.7 shows the structures of the bodies and conclusions i n other Japanese students' first informative presentations. FIGURE 4.7 The Structure of the Body and Conclusion of the First Informative Presentation Maki Masayo Yasuko Yoshimi I. Main Idea: I. Main Idea: I. Main Idea: I. Main Idea: How much blood do Tobacco's ingredients You should take People live together you have in your body? Supporting Details: vitamin C. and support each Supporting Details: 1. five thousand Supporting Details: other. 1. average liters of different chemicals 1. fruits which contain Supporting Details: blood (male and vitamin C 1. Christmas time in female) 2. good for some Vancouver diseases II. Main Idea: II. Main Idea: II. Main Idea: Why did she faint? How do they work in Vitamin C is easily Supporting Details: human body? broken down by heat. 1. blood pressure Supporting Details: Supporting Details: 1. carbon monoxide 1. baked orange 2. nicotine (counter-example) 3. tar III. Main Idea: III. Main Idea: III. Main Idea: Two kinds of blood What effect do they Taking too much vessels cause? vitamin C is not good. Supporting Details: Supporting Details: Supporting Details: 1. artery and vein 1. long-term effect 1. diarrhea 2. length of blood 2. statistics 2. skin turns yellow vessels Condusion Condusion Condusion Condusion — suggest taking care — suggest quitting — suggest taking — restate the topic of one's health smoking vitamin C but not statement (to be a good — a closure, 'Thank — a closure, 'Thank taking too much neighbor is very you very much" you" — a closure, "Finish" important) A s K e v i n had suggested, the body of every other student's presentation consisted of several main ideas wi th supporting details. Moreover, each student tended to conclude her speech in a sentence wi th making a suggestion to the audience: e.g., "Please take care of yourself, and have a good rest, and good sleep," "So finally I wanna say vi tamin C uh vi tamin C is really nice for our health, but don't too 78 much eat a lot of vitamin C , " and so on. Then, closures were usually indicated by formulaic expressions such as "Thank you very much." While Kevin did not mention anything about conclusions when he provided an evaluative comment after each student's presentation, he advised almost every student to add more detailed information or personal examples to the body of his/her speech. In the second week when students were still working on the same topics as their first presentations', Kevin provided more explicit instructions on organization. He concretely demonstrated how to do topic narrowing, make topic statements, expand and organize main ideas and supporting details. Although in the first week he taught how to brainstorm topics and emphasized that the content of the presentation should consist of several main ideas and ideas supporting them, he had not explicitly introduced a way of expanding and organizing main ideas and supporting details. On the first day of the second week he had Noriko volunteer her topic "Ireland," and had the class think about her topic, narrow it down, make a topic statement on it, and provide main ideas. Figure 4.8 shows the process they went through and the ideas students provided. Asking questions such as "What do you want to know about Ireland?", Kevin elicited ideas from the students, and wrote them on the blackboard. 79 FIGURE 4.8 Topic Narowing — Topic Statement — Main Ideas Topic Narrowing Topic Statement Main Ideas — Ireland — the lifestyle of the Irish — meals — people People -- customs — kind — daily life — lifestyle — personality — special activities / celebration After students had provided main ideas, he had them develop supporting ideas, showing how to organize supporting information under the M a i n Idea heading (see Figure 4.9). FIGURE 4 .9 Main Ideas — Supporting Details Main Idea: Daily Life A. work 1. hairdresser 2. schedule B. family relationship 1. very close (mother and daughter) details K e v i n handed out an outline form (see Figure 4.10) to each student and had h im/he r f i l l it out and make the outline of his/her next presentation. The body of this outline contains three sections for main points, and each main point has two divisions for supporting ideas. Al though K e v i n d id not restrict the number of main ideas or supporting details a speech should have, he suggested that three main points would be appropriate for a six or seven minute speech. In the second informative presentations, most students slightly (and some of them significantly) changed the structures of their speeches based on this format. Regarding the concluding part of a presentation, K e v i n mentioned that a conclusion should contain a summary of the speech and a reference to the 80 'Hook' (introduction); however, he d id not really have students practice making conclusions during the class. FIGURE 4.10 Outline Form Title: Introduction: Body I. M a i n point A . Supporting data 1. 2. B. Supporting data 1. 2. U. M a i n point A . Supporting data 1. 2. B. Supporting data 1. 2. III. M a i n point A . Supporting data 1. 2. B. Supporting data 1. 2. Conclusion: The body of Noriko 's second presentation consisted of three main points, while her first had had five: 81 10. Body and Conclusion(2ndInformative Presentation): Noriko (Jan. 17th) I. Main Idea: Irish people are very kind and friendly. Supporting Details: 1. Irish people are kind, (when she lost her way) 2. Irish people are friendly. (at shops and pubs) II. Main Idea: St. Patrick's Day Supporting Details: 1. green decoration The Irish people is uh very usually very kind, and friendly. I don't have any:: sense of direction. And uh Ireland, uh Dublin is very small town, the road is very narrow, and complicated. Of course I had lost -my way a lot of time. But I had never: been in a trouble. Because I could ask - people (1.0) of my way I want to go there, I want to go. (2.0) And also they were very kind, uh they were friendly. I loved to go: shopping, just window shopping, but because Irish people like talking with me. They asked me future, why I'm here, I was there, and the they give map. Sometimes - it too take too long, but I was I enjoyed it. (1.0) And the - they whenever I went pub, I don't know why, but people - people: told told me, "Sayonara, sayonara, sayonara." ((laugh)) They they don't know the meaning, because but they want to talk to me, so "Sayonara" means good-bye, but whenever I just entered the pub, they talked to me, "Sayonara, sayonara, sayonara." ((class laugh)) So at first, I was confused, because they always told me, "Good-bye, good-bye, good-bye." So but - I understand that I was very (1.0) com comfortable, at the pub because they want they welcome to me. (1.0) And the (1.0) fortunately, I had a I had a celebration of Ireland at that time. U::h t he biggest celebration of Ireland is St. Patrick's Day, on March, and I - I was there. There are big parade, and and partici participated with by the people - people all over the world, who had Irish background. And the - the they - everybody uh a lot of people paint their face with green green color, and dye temporary green hair, and drink green beer, green children drink green shake, and the (1.0) it was very good - experience for me. And everybody want to explain me about St. Patrick's Day at the parade. (1.0) And the (2.0) at my host family's house, I always eat Irish food, such as potato, ((laugh)) They always eat potato like rice for Japanese. (1.0) Um but it it's very taste good taste but for only one month. Two months, I think I will be sick, ((class laugh)) And also (1.0) um at the first day I go I went to my - Irish - family's, they prepared row fish, sashimi as sashimi. But they couldn't touch it. Because it's rare and uh I think they don't eat much foreign - country people country's meal, (Instructor) Or people ((laugh)) (xxx) I (1.0) I hope - you will go - Ireland, and - when you feel sad or - lonely, I recommended to go Ireland, and to see a lot of people, - who is very kind and friendly. Thank you very much. Al though Nor iko d id not change the content very much, she managed to put some main points together, and added more details to the supporting data for III. Main Idea: Food in Ireland Supporting Details: 1. potato 2. raw fish Condusion each main idea. K e v i n commented that her talking about personal experiences 82 was very good and important. In her conclusion, she did not provide a summary of the presentation; however, she referred back to one of the major points of her speech: "... and to see a lot of people, who - is very kind and friendly." Atsushi's body was also composed of three main ideas; he added one more main point to his previous presentation: 11. Body and Condusion(2nd Informative Presentation): Atsushi (Jan. 17th) So uh in nine nineteen eighty-six, - in Kobe, Japan, uh the first woman patient died Aids. That first case. And the uh: she she was the bar hostess, - and the I don't know about her, but that typical famous bar we usually uh used it. So every the people - who living in yeah Kobe - uh really went - panic, (1.0) at that time. So ten years later than that, today Aids still dangerous. (1.0) But -there is a - very special case was reported yesterda uh last year. There is living in some of uh some people - can - free from the Aids infection in Australia. (1.0) That a that was a fifteen about fifteen years ago, the - red cross donated uh no used a donated blood - but that blood - was contaminated uh Aids virus. (2.0) And but after ten uh fourteen years passed, no no patient uh had - came down by Aids. Everybody - actually eight persons are all healthy. A:nd researcher find, they have strongly they deve they developed a strongly immune system against Aids infection. A:nd what is (2.0) oh yeah that infected virus was naturally uh (1.0) naturally (3.0) worked as natural virus. That that's a very weak virus. And uh researcher find rese researcher confirm that uh evidence by use of the ape experiment. (1.5) So that's the first case just reported - on the Aids vaccine. That's a natural one. The there is still three prob big problem (x). One is that kind of virus is still so dangerous, that a - children easily get a real Aids. And uh next one is that kind of vaccine is only effective for healthy man. That cannot cure the real patient or carrier. And the third one is that virus is still virus. Not the man made vaccine. So - yeah doctor must inject that actual Aids virus to the healthy man, healthy guy. That so dangerous. I. Main Idea: Aids is a dangerous disease. Supporting Details: I. the first Aids patient in Japan II. Main Idea: Aids Vaccine Supporting Details: 1. the incident in Australia 2. research using apes III. Main Idea: Problems in developing Aids vaccine. Supporting Details: 1. Children easily get real Aids. 2. only effective for healthy men 3. HIV virus dangerous to the healthy man But I hope the conclusion, once smallpox is uh - considered as Condusion terminal illness, smallpox, but uh that that danger was released by -vaccine. So someday, Aids will be like a curable disease like a smallpox. That's all. Thank you. 83 Although the third main point of this excerpt was almost identical to the second major point of his first presentation, in this speech he gave more information and examples. Kevin referred to this in his evaluative comments: "... The supporting information was good. And I liked the way you blended uh information and example. ..." Atsushi concluded the presentation in a very similar manner to his first one, expecting that Aids would be a curable disease like smallpox some day. Figure 4.11 demonstrates the structures of the other Japanese students' second informative presentations. As mentioned in the previous section, in the second presentations most students significantly altered their introductions. While some of them did not explicitly provide introductory or concluding parts in their first presentations, they did to some extent in their second ones. Moreover, although Kevin did not restrict the number of main or supporting points, some students composed their second presentations based on the outline which Kevin had handed out to them in the second week. On the whole, most students added more detailed or personal information to their first speeches, as Kevin had suggested. 84 FIGURE 4.11 The Structure of the Body and Conclusion in the Second Informative Presentation Maki Masayo Yasuko Yoshimi I. Main Idea: I. Main Idea: I. Main Idea: I. Main Idea: Blood vessel and its Tobacco ingredients Vitamin C prevents Just a little experience function Supporting Details: various kinds of makes me feel Supporting Details: 1. five thousand disease. comfortable. 1. length and the different chemicals Supporting Details: Supporting Details: amount of blood 1. eye sight 1. garage sale 2. its function (Blood 2. cancer vessel carries oxygen to many places in your body.) II. Main Idea: II. Main Idea: II. Main Idea: II. Main Idea: Two kinds of vessels How does it work in Citrus fruits and some Problems of society are Supporting Details: human body? vegetables include related to isolation. 1. artery - providing Supporting Details: vitamin C. Supporting Details: fresh blood 1. carbon monoxide Supporting Details: 1. street kids 2. vein - carrying old 2. nicotine 1. kinds of fruits and 2. welfare blood to heart 3. tar vegetables III. Main Idea: III. Main Idea: III. Main Idea: What effects does it Vitamin C is easily Supporting people is cause? broken down by heat. important. Supporting Details: Supporting Details: Supporting Details: 1. long-term effects 1. baked orange 1. Christmas meal 2. recent study IV. Main Idea: Vitamin C is good for our mental condition. Supporting Details: 1. presentation V. Main Idea: Taking too much vitamin C is not good. Supporting Details: 1. diarrhea 2. skin turns yellow Condusion Condusion Condusion Condusion — suggest eating deep — suggest quitting — suggest eating — a quotation from a colored vegetables in smoking oranges well-known order to keep blood — restating that — a closure, "Finish" commentator and blood vessels tobacco is dangerous — a topic statement healthy — a closure, 'Thank - a closure, 'Thank — a closure, 'Thank you" you very much" you very much" 85 In the first two weeks when students were working on informative presentations, quite simple and basic organization principles, which are generally recommended as a standard system of outlining in many textbooks for public speaking (e.g., Barrett, 1987; Sternberg, 1984; Whi t e , 1978), were taught i n the class. Dur ing this period of time, K e v i n emphasized that the content of the presentation needed to consist of several main ideas and details supporting them, and introduced the outline format. Al though he later introduced other ways of organizing information for problem-solving and persuasive presentations, through the course he had always reminded students of the importance of coming up wi th clear main ideas and supporting information as a basis for composing their presentations. Problem-Solving Organization In the third week, students worked on problem-solving presentations, and K e v i n introduced another method of organization. O n the day that students started working on problem-solving speeches, K e v i n demonstrated how they should approach their new topics (problem topics) by uti l izing i m p r o m p t u presentations i n the class. In impromptu presentations, the student who volunteered or was nominated usually went up to the front, and K e v i n gave h im/he r a topic to talk about. Then he/she immediately had to make a presentation on it. Since there was no time for preparation, the student had to depend solely on his/her fluency and spontaneity. Furthermore, i n impromptu , K e v i n interjected constantly, and from time to time he also invited students to 86 consider the matters together with the presenter. Excerpt 12 illustrates Yasuko's impromptu presentation. Kevin asked Yasuko to talk about the problem of 'junk food.' S refers to other students. 12. Impromptu Presentation: Yasuko Kevin: Problem-solving. We're gonna look at problems. Looking at the problem. How do you go around, solving a problem? It's gonna be the next presentation. We're gonnastart with, Yasuko is gonna (xxx) problems onjunkfood. Yasuko: 1 don't have any idea. Kevin: Oh, it's too bad. Yeah, so this is her problem, junkfood. And what are some of the problems? Associated with junkfood? (1.0) Yeah, what doyoumean by junkfood first of all? Yasuko: McDonald? Kevin: OK. McDonalds, kind of stuff, hamburgers, greasy. OK. What else? Yasuko: Potato chips? Kevin: Potato chips? Yasuko: No? High calories French fries, Kevin: Potato chips, French fries, ((nodding)) or what else? Yasuko: Coke. Kevin: Yes, soft drinks, something's like that. Yasuko: Cookies? Kevin: Cook... oh yes. ((laugh)) Cookies, candy bars, chocolates, and various candies of different kinds. (2.0) So what are some of the problems associated with that kind of food? SI: Low nutrition. Kevin: OK. Low nutrition. What else? S2: High calories. Kevin: High calories. What else? S2: Preservatives? Kevin: Preservatives! Chemical preservatives. Yes. Yasuko: Garbage? Kevin: Garbage! OK. Good. OK. Probably comeupwith someothers. What we wanna do is, (1.0) talk about the big problem, big topic, narrow it down, give examples, (x) on the board. Really go out there. Goforit. Yasuko: Talk about junkfood? Ss: ((class laugh)) Kevin: Lefs talk about your childhood experience, ((smiling at her)) Yeah, junkfood. Of course. Junk food. I really love junk food, ((laugh)) so chocolate, 1 cannot stop eating chocolate. Good! ((clapping his hands)) Someone else, please, ((laugh)) Yasuko: But those things are really bad for our health, so: because uh junkfood contains a lot of uh chemicals and sugar, uh fat and: preserve stuff? Kevin: Preservatives, ((small voice)) Yasuko: Preservatives. Kevin: Preservatives. Yasuko: Preservatives. Kevin: A h ! Yasuko: Yeah. So it's not goodfor our health. So we can we have to we don't have nonowewe shouldn't take a lot of junkfood, but these are very easy to get, not so expensive, also and also we can buy any where. Like vending machine, also. Kevin: Hang on. You give me an entire presentation here. All we want is a problem. So you you've started out. OK. I have a problem... Then you started out with chemicals, and uh fat, sugar and preservatives. Narrowing, keep narrowing down. Don't goto the way you can buy 87 it by machines and this and that. Yasuko: [Narrowing down, umso uh - a lot of contains a lot of fat. If person, uh and a also sugar, i f the person take a lot of sugar, they will gain weight, and also not good for a teeth, - um and: Kevin: Giving giving an example. Yasuko: Uh, narrow? Uh narrow, sugar? Kevin: Give the real, 1 mean what kind of food? Give give an example. Yasuko: Uh for example, cookie, chocolate, candy? Kevin: OK. Yasuko: A:nd soft candies? ((laugh)) Anduh: soft drinks like Coca Cola? Kevin: OK. Yeah. I'm gonna just stop you here. That's exactly what I want. Thank you. So basically what she's done here is she's come up with a main topic, she defines it a little bit what does it mean, she narrows it down, she's limited the topic, she's giving some information, some data. In other words, what kind of, food or (x). This is what you will do when you start working ona problem topic. In this excerpt, since Yasuko did not have anything to say about the topic at first, Kevin attempted to elicit some ideas from her by providing several questions. Other students also helped her to come up with the ideas. Moreover, even after Yasuko started speaking, Kevin frequently interjected comments to keep her speech on track: proposing a main idea, defining it, narrowing it down, limiting it, and providing examples. He concluded that the process Yasuko took in this impromptu was what students should do when they started working on their problem topics. Moreover, he later taught this process more clearly, having students do role plays. Figure 4.12 demonstrates the procedure students should take when they think through their problem topics. F I G U R E 4.12 T h i n k i n g Through a Problem 1. Define the problem 2. Limit 3. Collect + analyze data 4. What to achieve? 5. Consider possible alternatives 6. Select and act In role plays, Kevin gave students problematic situations and let them solve problems. In order to solve problems, students were encouraged to ask many 88 questions of each other, and K e v i n particularly emphasized the importance of N o . 4 "What to achieve?" He said, "What k ind of outcome you want to achieve is very important." Subsequently, using Masayo's problem topic "homosexual adoption," K e v i n also introduced a method of organization for problem-solving presentations. First he showed the relationship between causes, effects, problems, and solutions on the blackboard (see Figure 4.13). FIGURE 4.13 The Relationship between Causes, Effects, Problems and Solutions Causes Effects Al though he described the relationship between these four elements, he d id not provide explicit explanation for this structure. Ask ing questions: "What's the problem?", "Why is that a problem?", "Which causes do you want to use?", and "What are the solutions?", K e v i n elicited possible causes, effects, problem and solutions for Masayo's topic from the students. Figure 4.14 illustrates the ideas the students came up wi th . 89 FIGURE 4.14 "Homosexual Adoption" Causes Effects — confused roles for — psycho problem children -- identity — against natural — discrimination law Problem — break-down of Homosexual conventional Adoption marriage — religious belief — economics Solutions — want children — law ~ education After considering Masayo's topic together, students worked on their own problem topics, following the same procedure as above. Based on this way of coming up with ideas, students structured the bodies of their problem-solving presentations with the combinations of causes, effects and solutions. Since Kevin did not specify the logical order of these elements, the ordering depended solely on each student's preference or intention. In fact, many textbooks for public speaking suggest that a causal relationship for problem-solving speech can proceed either from the cause to the effect (result), or from the effect to the cause (e.g., see White, 1978). In addition, one more thing I would like to draw attention to here is the fact that when explaining how to read articles and take notes for collecting information, Kevin explicitly taught students that the first paragraph of research materials usually contains main ideas and that the first sentence usually contains main idea for that paragraph. Therefore, he said that students did not always 90 need to read whole paragraphs because most of the time they could grasp the main ideas i n the first sentences of the paragraphs. This organizational principle reflects a characteristic of the standard rhetorical organization of the Engl i sh paragraph, although K e v i n d id not mention this. Hinds (1980) articulates those rhetorical features of the English paragraph as follows: — The topic entity is established early i n the paragraph; i n most cases, it is established in the first sentence. — Paragraphs begin wi th the topic statement, then develop wi th the presentation of information from a variety of perspectives, all of which are directly related to that statement, (pp. 131-132) Al though K e v i n introduced this information aiming to improve students' reading and note taking skills, it also appeared to influence the composition of their own speech texts. Excerpt 13 demonstrates the body and conclusion of Yasuko's problem-solving presentation: 13. The Body and Condusion(Problem-Solving Presentation): Yasuko (Jan. 25) So: so first so what happen if we feel nervousness, physically and I. Effects mentally? Physically, like right now uh: my heart so-beating so fast, What happens breathing shorter and - shorter and faster. And my palm and (x) are physically and mentally very sweat. Yeah, ((laugh)) and also (xx) so dry, and I wanna go to when we feel nervous? washroom, ((laugh)) And I had a stomach upset, this kind of thing 1. physically happen. And mentally, like self-talk, "Oh, what should I do if I 2. mentally made a mistake or audience would laugh at me?" And also (xx) this kind of thing happen if I feel we feel so nervous. And next, uh causes, what uh, causes ((mumbling)) what change(?) II. Causes make us so nervous? For example, public speaking and um just just Causes for nervousness before see a TOEFL score, which I really expected good score, and also 1. situations which make first time yeah first time to ask somebody go to date. And also um: and usnervous also uh try to first try something first time like play golf or — public speaking, taking something. This kind of situation makes us so nervous, uncomfortable. TOEFL, trying new things And now uh these result, and also we - expect too much good result. This kind of uh these things are commoncommonthing. And now I had a cause causes and also (1.0) causes. So we now we need - solution. So one solution is one is, don't expect III. Solutions too much from yourself. Nobody can do well at the first time. We need Solutions to nervousness uh: we need - errors again again again. And also (4.0) yeah, just like 1. Don't expect too much, uh just like play the piano love piano or guitar or play basketball, 2. Accept criticism. 91 soccer, just like some sports or play musical instrument. A:nd next is 3. Think positively. accept cri criticism? criticism. You know criticism is sometimes re uh 4. Imagine good things. really hard to accept criticism, but it's good suggestion. After 5. Practice. presentation, Ken Ken (2.0) makes get little by little a perfect perfect. And next one uh next is think positively. We sometime think very negative uh: what happen uh 1 feel what should I do or something. But fail fail are also - possibility and but - uh: on the other hand, we have we have a we have a success possibility. So we should think positively. It's really good. And next is - uh: last week Ken mentioned us, "Let's imagine good good good think." Like uh this these things, uh: list of - positive speaker trait, good posture, strong eye contact, and self-confidence, enthusiasm, and appropriate gesture, using hand or something, and vocal variety, and interested in audience. So let's imagine you are you are nice - nice public speaker. So likes um: like figure skaters, figure skaters imagine they can do well jump or (2.0) jumpor every move, they imagine they can do perfectly. Even though uh: fa - even though fail, uh it's (1.0) it's not good uh it's even though we fail, it's not bad because fail will not destroy you, it help help us. And if so we we can have a good picture (xx) but we we cannot uh fears and nervousness not disappear. But it's normal. Uh: sometimes not sometime uh too much nervousness it's not good, but little nervousness make us strong, and give us energy. So little nervousness is really good fordo something. A:nd and most important thing is practice, practice practice practice. So: like sports. So first we, - first we start some sports, you are poor like tennis player, poor ball player. But uh we we do practice again again again, we can be a almost perfect player. Or we satisfied the situation, so practice is important. And also uh: the more - more public speaking makes - the more public speaking the better you become good public speak ((laugh)) good public speaker. And so uh once we overcome those problems we don't we don't have Conclusion to afraid of-uh this nervousness again. Finish. Yasuko started the body of her presentation with effects (results) caused by nervousness, followed by causes of it and solutions for preventing it. Effects, causes, and solutions can be clearly identified in this excerpt, since Yasuko stated the topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph: "So: so first so what happen if we feel nervousness, physically and mentally?", "And next, uh causes, what uh, causes ((mumbling)) what change (?) make us so nervous?", and "So we now we need - solution." Her conclusion was only one sentence: "And so uh once we overcome those problems, we don't we don't have to afraid of - uh this nervousness again." She did not provide either a summary or a reference to her hook. Although Kevin did not make any comments on her conclusion, he 92 remarked on the body, "... Y o u really knew what you wanted to say. ... Also you put your all feelings and experiences, which related to everybody else felt also. ..." Masayo was going to make a speech on "homosexual adoption." However , she changed her topic for the actual presentation. Excerpt 14 is the body and conclusion of her problem-solving presentation. 14. The Body and Conclusion(Problem-Solving Presentation): Masayo (Jan. 25th) Uh most common problem to cause depression is um family relationship. They have uh abusive father or mother, or they also have poor home. I (x) I say uh I read the article, uh it's from Vancouver Sun in uh in 1994, it says - social worker say some of the run-always are from poor home or family backgrounds. Uh that indude mental, physical or sexual abuse. (2.0) They uh they don't have good relationship between family and themselves, soifs uh naturally they tend to uh friendship. Uh I well show statistics. The first one uh (3.0) ((looking into the note)) when something be goes wrong in the (xx) teen, only ten percent want to tell their mothers. And only two percent want to confide in their fathers. And also when something great happens, only five percent want to tell your mothers, and and only one percent want to tell yourfathers. So nowyouknow (1.0) they uh really choice their friendship more than family relationship. But uh friendship is also one of factors to cause depression. Uh: they: the teenager might have a problem such as bullying or uh: school um uh like a (x) pressure. So I'll also show the statistics. Uh: sixty-seven percent uh in a teenager bothered by pressure to do well a t school. So butuh: uh: teenager are influenced uh easy very - easy each other. So they - can't find any solution by themselves. So if s very easy to choose wrong way. And: so - unfortunately, uh twen uh sixty-five percent in teenager say drugsare very easy to it, so: in Canada. Uh I'm talking about teenager in Canada, sorry I didn't mention it. And: - uh so many - depressed people turn to use drug to deal with the situation, to escape from the depression. Finally, maybe they try to see uh: what they are doing now, or try to see uh: what am I like or try to see themselves. Um: but they have already known um what's um problems such as family, drug uses, school failure something like that. But also they - can't - find (1.0) uh they can't to face to problems, they don't know - what to do, by themselves. So it's like a endless cycle. At first uh they have some problem, and they try to escape from this problem and they feel depression, they use drug or (1.0) uh: they runaways, and then after that they try to see themselves but they don't know what to do, and they return to use drug like that. So they can't uh: get out from this circle, and that uh: after that the their depression is deeper deeper deeper gradually. Anduh: they will just maybe find there is no hope in the future. This extremely depression uh: - cause uh: to commit suicide. So OK uh: (3.0) or uh: they might have frustration, so it -cause uh: violence to other people. I. Cause and Effect 1. Cause: bad family relationship a. statistics from Vancouver Sun 2. Effect: Teenagers turn to their friends. II. Cause and Effect 1. Cause: bad friendship a. statistics 2. Effect: Teenagers turn to drug abuse. III. Cause and Effect 1. Cause: themselves 2. Effect: Teenagers commit suicide, or use violence. 93 In Canada, uh: there is somesystem to have them - such as uh: day IV. Solutions (Conclusion) care center, or rehabilitation for druguses, drugusers, or counseling. U h 1. day care center, they work very well, butuh: OK I will su suggest uh that what they rehabilitation, or really need is - uh to know what they are doing now or to make sure counseling what they do in their life, in their future all the time. That's the only 2. knowing what they are way to escape from their depression. doing now or making sure what they are doing in their life Masayo provided three causes for young people's depression, and each cause was connected to an effect. Then, in the last paragraph, she gave possible solutions to the problem of depression. Although the body of her speech was structured differently from Yasuko's, it was also a combination of causes, effects and solutions. In the first and second paragraphs in this excerpt, Masayo's topic sentences come at the beginning as Yasuko's did: "Uh most common problem to cause depression is um: family relationship" and "But uh friendship is also one of factors to cause depression," while in the third and fourth they came in the middle. Moreover, she finished her speech by giving solutions to the problem; and she did not summarize the content of the presentation or refer to the hook. Kevin's evaluative comment on the content of her presentation was "... You seemed much more comfortable, you organized, you really had a lot of information about what you wanted to say...." The structure of the bodies and conclusions of the other Japanese students' problem-solving presentations is presented in Figure 4.15. Except for the body of Atsushi's presentation, the others' were composed of a combination of causes, effects and solutions just like Yasuko's and Masayo's. Furthermore, again except for Atsushi, the others started each paragraph with a topic sentence. In Atsushi's text, the information in the first and third paragraphs did not directly support the 94 major theme of his presentation, although they were indirectly related to it. His topic entity was "The problems in employment equality between men and women in Japan"; however, he introduced lots of statistics about employment in Canada, and he did not state his topic at the beginning of the speech. Kevin specifically pointed this out in his evaluative comment, "... also what was your topic? ... Equality in employment? Employment equality, but where? ... because all your statistics are about Canada. So tell us. That's why the introduction is so important. That summary, topic statement, main ideas right in the beginning. ... It was a little bit vague. ..." In the problem-solving presentation, most students composed their speeches with the combination of problem, causes, effects and solutions as Kevin had suggested, although each of them arranged these elements differently. Some began their speeches with causes followed by effects and solutions, while others discussed two or three causes in a separate "paragraph" and concluded each "paragraph" with possible effects. Moreover, some students concluded their presentations by providing solutions, without summarizing the contents or referring to the hooks. Yet, since most of the arguments were clear, Kevin did not comment on these various re-arrangements of their material. 95 FIGURE 4.15 The Structure of the Body and Conclusion in the Problem-Solving Presentation Atsushi Maki Noriko Yoshimi I. One episode in Japan (Men took nursing leaves (1993)). II. Cause and Effect 1. percentage of working women in Canada (statistics) 2. Cause: the reality of Equal Opportunity Acts in Japan 3. Effect: no equality in working opportunities between men and women III. Kinds of Jobs for women and men in Canada 1. newly developed jobs for women and men 2. declining jobs for women and men IV. Cause and Effect 1. Effect: less opportunity for women to be promoted to manager in Japan 2. Cause: Japanese traditional prejudice towards women V. Solutions I. Cause and Effect 1. Effect: sexual harassment in the work place and schools 2. Causes: physical contact and verbal abuse II. Cause and Effect 1. Effect: date rape 2. Cause: unclear relationship between a boyfriend and girlfriend III. Cause, Effect and Solution Maki's own experience at her company 1. Cause: Her boss always teased her with very dirty words. 2. Effect: verbal abuse 3. Solution: She directly asked him not to do that. IV. Solution (Condusion) 1. Speak out. - suggest being nice to yourself - a closure, 'Thank you." I. Effect of bullying 1. the example of 13 year-old boy in Japan (He committed suicide.) II. Causes of bullying 1. a lack of communication at home 2. a lot of stress III. Solutions for bullying (Condusion) 1. Change educational system 2. Reduce the number of students in a class I. Cause and Effect 1. Cause: Natural food contains high percentage of vitamin and mineral and less fat and sugar. 2. Effect: It makes us healthy. II. Cause and Effect 1. Effect: Natural food is economic. 2. Cause: It is cheap. III. Cause and Effect 1. Effect: Natural food is good for society. 2. Cause: Buying a lot of natural food supports agri-business. IV. Solutions 1. check points when you buy natural food 2. recommended stores Condusion — restating a topic statement — a closure, 'Thank you very much." (Atsushi was stopped here because of the time limit) 96 Compared with the first and second presentations, many students also tended to state their topic sentences at the beginning of the paragraphs. This is one of the rhetorical characteristics of the English paragraph (Hinds, 1980). It can be assumed that the reason students tended to do that was either that Kevin had explicitly taught them that the first sentence usually contains main ideas for that paragraph, or that the nature of the kind of presentation (problem-solving) simply requires more explicit demonstration of a causal relationship between information than informative presentations do. Persuasive Organization From the fourth to the sixth weeks, students worked on persuasive presentations. At the end of the fourth week, the first persuasive presentation was conducted, and at the end of the sixth week, the second one was held. Every student chose a different topic for each presentation. I will focus here only on the first persuasive presentation conducted in the fourth week since during this period of time Kevin introduced a method of organization for persuasive presentation. The second persuasive presentation included question periods; therefore, class time in the fifth and the sixth weeks was spent more on practicing asking and answering questions than on learning organizational principles. On the first day of the fourth week, when students started working on their first persuasive topics, Kevin stated the importance of persuasive appeals and motivations to persuasive presentations by showing several example 97 pictures of motivators from advertisements i n magazines. These pictures were from cigarette companies, the fashion industry and so forth. Responding to Kevin ' s questions, such as "What 's the feeling of this?", students gave their impressions and ideas on these pictures i n various words: e.g., expensive, classy, warmth, family, happiness, power, independence, love, passion, sex, health, fun, and freedom. K e v i n said that these motivators caused us to buy products, and that just like i n advertising considering who your target audience is is critical to persuasive presentation. He also gave each student a handout in which possible persuasive appeals and motivators were printed (see Figure 4.16). F I G U R E 4.16 Persuasive Appeals and Motivations appreciation approval comfort convenience entertainment health love peace of mind prestige power money profit recognition respect safety and security success sex status curiosity altruism Having students read them aloud, K e v i n emphasized that i n persuasive presentation, both logical (factual) and emotional information are necessary, and that emotional information is especially effective. Interestingly, Atsushi later commented on this issue i n his interview, "Japanese way of persuading is quite different from English. Overwhelming factual evidence! That is Japanese way." Recollecting his business experiences, he said that although he presented tons of factual evidence when he attempted to negotiate business deals wi th Americans, that evidence was not sufficient to convince them. Emotional arguments also played critical roles in persuading them. 98 After discussing persuasive appeals and motivators, K e v i n introduced a method of organization for persuasive presentation. Figure 4.17 is the model he taught. FIGURE 4.17 Persuasive Presentation Organization 1. Attention This is the "hook", the grabber that gets the audience's attention. 2. Issue This is the topic statement. It must directly relate to the audience. It should be clear, well organized and easy to understand. Why is this issue important to the listener? This is your point of view. 3. Need Why does this problem or issue need to be looked at and changed or thought about? Justify why this issue is so important. 4. Supports In this step you find a variety of supporting materials that will help convince the audience that your point of view is the right one. This can be a variety of factual and emotional appeals. Consider interviews, books, magazines and especially visuals. It is here that you back up your point of view with evidence. 5. Challenge The last stage is to appeal to the audience to change, buy, support, or think about a certain point of view or product. You must again show the need for this change and what the individual will gain by following your point of view. K e v i n particularly emphasized that 'Issue' and 'Need' needed to be explicitly articulated i n persuasive speeches. Al though White (1978) uses different words to describe this structure, he also argues that if you wish to persuade your audience to accept, reject or believe something, the major headings of the body of the speech could represent 'reasons for acceptance, rejection or belief.' W h i l e K e v i n taught only this organizational model i n the class, some textbooks introduce other patterns as wel l (e.g., White, 1978). K e v i n further explained this structure i n detail by employing i m p r o m p t u role plays. Excerpt 15 illustrates one of the role plays conducted i n the class 99 during the fourth week. Atsushi played the role of father, and V his daughter. A refers to Atsushi , V a Taiwanese student, and S other students. 15. ImpromptuRole Play: Atsushi and V (a Taiwanese female student) Kevin: OK, here is a situation. OK, V is a daughter, and uh she started university, and she has living at home for the first year of university. Now she'd really like to be away from home. She wants to live by herself. And it's going to be a persuasive (x), you want to persuade the father to let you be away from home. He may want to persuade you to stay home.... I'm gonnastop you every onceand a while to give you little point on this. Now remember this is a persuasive. Basically a persuasive presentation. You want to start out with some attention-getting device. In this case, it would be something like ... something nice. Give it a try. Begin. Let's see what will happen. V: Dear father, you know, today is sunshine. How uh let's gouh go for a walk? A: Oh, but today is so cold, ((laugh)) V: I think uh we haven't talked each other for a longtime. I want to talk with you. A: Uh huh. O K . V : Is that all right? OK, go. ((laugh)) Kevin: Actually this is a good thing. She started out with wanting to do something together, which is a nice thing. Also by saying "Do you have sometime?" That's a very good suggestion. To make sure that the personyou wanna talk to, you're gonna (x) ask them a favor or ask them to help you do something, make sure if they have time to talk to you right now. Yeah, goahead, continue. A : Do you have something to say? to to to - something to speak - talk? V: Sure, yes. You think the birds are always cute and free, right? A: Yeah. V: I think, uh nowl'm twenty years old, and I have already lived independence for oneyear, Kevin: No, no at home. V : OK, and uh I think I'm already twenty years old, and uh I'm independent, I think uh I can -live by myself. A: Did you find a new boyfriend? ((laugh)) SI: ' Wow, sensitive, ((laugh)) V: You mean who? A: And uh who doyou want to live with? V: No, I just want to live by myself. And uh you know, these days I find a part time job, and I make my money and A: What kind of jobdoyoufind did youfind? V: To be a tutor. A : Tutor? Uh huh, how much money? V: Uh, an hour twenty dollars. A: Twenty? Uh huh, not so bad. And where do you want to live? V: Uh I just want to find the place where is nearby uh my campus. And uh you know, these days I have a lot of homework, and uh I'm busy. Yeah and I participate in some special activities, and I leadership. Kevin: Just before you go on. This is very goodsofar, actually. Atsushi the father is listening quite well. He is asking some questions for more details. That's good. And the daughter is starting to say why she needs this. She said the issue. Now she is showing the needs, why it is important. ... Please continue. A: ... If you stay here, you can you don't have to cook, you don't have to wash. That's all mother's work. 1 know I know you don't contribute ((laugh)) you don't contribute for mother's mother's work. So that's uh -11 supposeit's difficult for you to study uh - morestudy hard, you can't concentrate the work t he study. V: No no no, I don't think so, because, you know, in the future, I will be a mother and a wife, too. So I mean, 100 A: But nowyouare student. V : No, ifs a good time for me to learn how to cook, and how to [(x) A: I You must Kevin: OK. Stop just a minute. What's happened here? ((looking around the class)) They've stopped listening to each other. Disagreement. But they've both stopped listening to each other. And it started to happen when Atsushi did this. What does this make you feel like? ((to the class)) S2: Depressed? Kevin: Depressed. OK. S3: Struggle? Kevin: A struggle. What else? Listen to me. It's very aggressive. It's good, i f s good because often parents would do that. They do the power thing. You listen to me. ((laugh)) So be careful, those kind of aggressive signals. Because if you see someone doing that kind of thing like especially with a finger, like this. It's very aggressive. And ifs a time to back off just a little bit. And 1 isten. And when they say something, yes, OK, I understand that, however, ... you know I see what you say, but... A: Uh huh, but your first purpose is to study more. Not learn cooking. V: Dear father, not really, you know, uh study is important, too. But social life is also important. I mean if I live nearby campus. A: Oh, wait wait. Which is important, social life or study? V: Both of them. V: So father, I have a recommendation. I think please you promise me to move out, and I'm sure in this semester, Kevin: Hang ona second. Promise me I can move out. You don't want him to move out. ((laugh)) V: Promise me I can move out. And I'm sure that the next session I will I will get uh scholarship, and I promise that I study hard. On the other hand, 1 will learn how to independent, how to be independent. A; And: uh did you decided uh - new residence? Kevin: Hang ona second,now. So we are looking at this last part, 'challenge.' AndV gave a challenge. So you need to respond to that, first. V s challenge was what? What did she want him to do? What was the agreement that she was willing to have? S4: Uh she promise to get a scholarship, and then if she get it, she will move out. Kevin: No, that is what she promised. It was the other way round. She said, "Let me move out. I promise I will study and I will get a scholarship." She wants to move out first, and then prove to her father she can still study well, and do very well even though she is living on her own. You need to respond to that, ((to Atsushi)) ... In this role play, since the purpose of this play was to persuade each other to do something, K e v i n suggested that both Atsushi and V should structure their parts of the discussion just as when they do persuasive presentations, by getting attention, stating the issue, explaining why it is important (need), p rov id ing supporting information and again showing the need for change (challenge). K e v i n from time to time interjected comments to demonstrate how to structure persuasive arguments. Moreover, he repeatedly emphasized that consistently 101 keeping the issue in mind, and considering what kind of action you want the audience to take were very important in persuasive presentations. Excerpt 16 is the introduction, body and conclusion of Maki's first persuasive presentation. Since Kevin frequently emphasized the importance of stating the issue (topic statement) in the early stages of presentation, and since students mostly tended to do so in their introductions, I will here present not only the body and conclusion but also the introduction. 16. The Introduction, Body and Condusiondst Persuasive Presentation): Maki (Feb. 1st) Hi , good morning, everybody. Uh, hey, Atsushi, when did you uh: exercise last time? (Atsushi) Uh: i f s long time ago. Maybe last session, yeah the end of December. Oh, really? Oh, you should workout. OK, I will I'll talk about workout today. And you should workout at least three times a week. That's very good for your health. And Til - talk about why and how and what. And why? Because if you have the same amount of weight you have now than when you were younger, if but you don't know how lessen (x) is your body, muscles and fat. And important to keep your fat, for example, for women, you should keep your fat uh twenty percent or thirty uh less than thirty percent. But for men you should keep your fat at urruless than fifteen percent. And but it's difficult to keep your musdes because if you don't use your muscles, your musdes uh getting decrease, and they getting thinner and thinner, and fat became big and big and big. If you have same amount, for example, sixty sixty kilograms in your body, maybe you have thirty kilograms of fat. Maybe you have forty kilograms of muscles. Who never knows? A:nd what kind of exercise is effect on your body? As if you want to down your fat, you should do uh: uh: ac uh aerobics training, like uh jogging, and bicycle, and swimming. It's very good as J (a Korean female student) does. And - next step is make your make your muscles stronger. Because your musdes burn make fat burruBecau uh so if you like - have less fat, you should have more muscles. So muscles help burning fat. And but be careful as you're doing muscle training, your musdes are hurt. Um, have you have you experienced sore muscles? Maybe everybody - does, which means your musdes are injured. Your musdes hurt. And your musdes tissue here, so you have to give your muscles a rest at least twenty-four hours. S good program is you can do aerobics exercise every day. But musde training, you may have a rest, uh: two uh: (x) every two days. Attention: — ask one or more direct question requiring visible audience response Issue: You should workout at least three times a week. That's very good for your health. Need: Why is workout necessary? 1. muscles and fat Supports I: What kind of exercise is effective for your body? 1. aerobics 2. muscle training 102 And where we can do like this kind of exercise? Uh: there are good many places you can do this kind of exercise. Because in North American culture, they are very very interested in exercise, workout. And you can go to community center's gymnastic. Usually, uh: Richmond has several community centers, Vancouver has several, and there are aquatic center and ice arena and gymnastic. And you can use those kind of place, very cheap price. And I taking uh: aqua (x) course in Richmond community center, it was good for me. Because at that time, I just arrived at the Vancouver, and I couldn't speak English a t all. But I anyway I joined the aquacised club, and I made I could make friend - there. Just I could say "Hi" or "How are you doing?" But it very fun. And I really recommend we join those kind of activity. And they uhthey are usually very friendly. And there are also place you can pay to join whatever, like 'Fitness World', uh and 'Lady, Spalady' (?), and those kind of fitness club. And I remember of Fitness World, there are, uh for example, Fitness World, there are is two places in downtown and one place in Richmond. I usually go to Richmond one, there is uh: sauna, and hot (x) shower, and many kind of gear to exercise. And these days, it's very cold weather, and my favorite treat for myself is having a nice hot sauna. So 1 1 go to gym because I like to have hot sauna. Uh: and I really recommend you uh have exercise because you will really feel great, and you can prevent catch diseases disease like cold, and sore throat like that. Supports II: Where and how can we do these kinds of exercise? 1. the places where we can exercise 2. Maki's experience Challenge: — feeling great - being able to prevent disease And uh also I like I like to mention about an article as I read newspaper today. And there is uh, you know baby boomers? They are getting older, now they are uh fifty years old, their age. Those people are less exercise regularly than uh twenty years ago, so they are getting unhealthier unhealthier. So that means, let's think, twenty years later they become seventy, there are many people, and they don't usually they don't exercise usually, so they co they uh health care money expenses are very bigger, bigger. So uh: therefore, uh: people's health, public health, (Instructor stopped her because of the time limit.) Maki exactly followed the outline for persuasive presentation that Kevin had introduced to the class. She started her speech by attracting attention with a direct question requiring audience response, stated the issue, provided the need, and gave supports to back up her point of view. Although she did not reach the conclusion because of the time limit, she provided the challenge after giving several supports: "Uh: and I really recommend you uh have exercise because you will really feel great, and you can prevent catch disease disease like cold, and sore throat like that." After saying this, she again began providing another support; Supports III: Health care expense 1. the article about baby boomers 103 however, K e v i n stopped her because of the time. He later d id not mention that point but commented, " O K , good. Excellent presentation. ... Very good information. Also very simple organization. Y o u told us exactly what you wanted us to listen for and you told us, told us what we listened for and you gave us examples. U h , wel l done. ..." Just like in the last presentation (problem-solving), moreover, M a k i stated the topic sentence i n an interrogative form at the beginning of each paragraph: " A n d why?", " A : n d what k ind of exercise is effect on your body?", and " A n d where we can do like this k ind of exercise?" The introduction, body and conclusion of Yoshimi 's first persuasive presentation is illustrated i n excerpt 17. 17. The Introduction, Body and Conclusiondst Persuasive Presentation): Yoshimi (Feb. 1st) Uh: you feel a little bit hungry, is it a good idea to drink a water? 11 Attention: - it also - uh: maybe you will not feel hungry because of the water. And -- ask one or more I suggest that to drink a bottle water is good for our health. Uh: (3.0) rhetorical questions uh actually uh: in my country, I bought a dozen of the box of the bottle Issue: water, and a company uh delivery my house, so it's very convenient. And I suggest that to drink a bottle water is good for our health. The first, I will explain about the what is the main problem problem of the tap water. Uh:: there is a some kind of sources, uh: numberoneuh on the uhinthe groundwater, they include uh chemical (1.0) contamination of industrial a:nd agricultural - uh sources. And the second, the biological contamination of the - human uh by the human and animal. So uh: this is a kind of water. And: the water run through the pipe to your house or school - to the tap, so the way is the uh also include the: include the: some kind of problem, and uh this way is the delivery system uh - have have construct many years ago, so um: the the: pipe is more getting getting older. Eh: the: red - rust maybe include the water, and when you when you tap when you open your tap, and water have some contamination. So this is the problem. And the fact(?), this is the US (3.0) ((looking into the note)) the search of the US uh agency, is the: for kids is bad for creative and learning distribute disabilities and also lower intelligence up to 5 point IQ. And for adult is the:: damage of (1.0) nervous system. And the always eco for economic is the one billion medi one billion dollars medical care to spend the (xx) for the special education for the -water. So I suggest that easy to change to buy the bottle water. Need: What are the main problems of the tap water? 1. Contaminated tap water 2. the research on tap water from a US agency It's uh: there is a lot of benefit to drink uh bottle uh to drink it. And Supports: the this is the picture show shows what is the root of the water. So Benefits of drinking 104 rain is falling down, and soak into the ground and the: (3.5) internal bottled water pressure internal pressure in the earth is uh floated up up to the air. So 1. the source of the water it is very natural sources, and also include the irons, uh: lot higher 2. ingredients of bottled higher number of irons, and calcium and magnesium. This is the: uh: water ingredient of the bottle water. So uh: this uh how many you know as 3. ability to prevent you know the Evian Water, include the highest calcium, na na:trium various diseases and magnesium and kalium. It will be better for your healthy, and 4. reusable bottle (good for also - uh: and also uh: this kind of water is life saver. It's - very - uh: environment) it have ability for prevent dying to heart attack, and good for your 5. tasty (Yoshimi's own teeth, uh: according to bone, and um: bio blood vessels (3.0) a:nd I show experience) some kind of ability, is uh they have uh company have uh not only this size but they have a variety of size, for example, one liter, or five liter, or more smaller than this. A:nd the cup is reusable after that, so it's good for the environmental and also the cost is cheap, um: less than two dollars, and umuh when you drink a tea or coffee, um: it's good taste. Actually I uhlast night I the water of cup of tea, it's good. U m l feel great. So it this is the good opportunity to change to drink a bottle water, Challenge: and the: also Canadian bottle water is cheaper cheaper than your — Canadian bottled water country, so you should try. Thank you very much. is cheaper than other countries'. Yosh imi also composed her presentation by applying the structure K e v i n taught i n the class. She first asked a rhetorical question, " U h : you feel a little bit hungry, is it a good idea to drink a water?", stated the issue, and then provided the need and supports. She used a lot of visuals as factual and emotional appeals. Al though she gave the challenge at the end, she d id not really refer again to the need. Whi le i n the need she attempted to persuade the audience to drink bottled water by showing the evidence that tap water is contaminated and is bad for our health, i n the challenge she talked about the price of bottled water. K e v i n d id not refer to this point i n his comment; however, he pointed out that her challenge needed more detailed information: "... Your issue and need are very clear. H o w about telling us about different brands? Because again the challenge. There must be ten or fifteen brands of bottled water i n Vancouver. W h i c h is the best (x) brand? H o w much? Y o u said cheap. H o w much is cheap? ... What is cheap? So tell us more specific details like that...." Just like M a k i , moreover, Yosh imi began 105 each paragraph w i t h topic statements: "The first, I w i l l explain about the what is the main problem problem of the tap water." and "If s uh: there is a lot of benefit to drink uh bottle u h to drink it." Figure 4.18 (p. 108) shows the structures of the introductions, bodies and conclusions i n the other Japanese students' first persuasive presentations. In contrast wi th the structures of Maki ' s and Yoshimi 's presentations, which exactly followed the one K e v i n had suggested, those of the other Japanese students varied a little. For instance, while M a k i and Yosh imi provided the needs after the introductions, others gave them i n the introductions wi th the attentions and issues, and some of them also gave the needs before the issues. However, since the arguments were clearly delivered, K e v i n d id not refer to these structural sequences. Instead, whenever giving evaluative comments, he emphasized the importance of the challenge (What do you want the audience to think, or act on?) i n persuasive presentation since some students d id not manifest their challenges explicitly. Excerpt 18 is Kevin 's comment on Atsushi's presentation. 18. Excerpt from Evaluative Commentsof Instructor to Atsushi's Presentation Kevin: ... So for example, E (a female Korean student), what was his challenge? E: Atsushi wanted us to wake up at the same time? No? Kevin: Not exactly. Anybody, what was his challenge? Yasuko: Have a good sleep? Kevin: Have a goodsleep? No, ifs unclear. See? It's unclear. It's not that they don't understand. You didn't make it clear. This is the very important thing with the persuasive presentation. What you want the audience to think, want them to do and act on? You said, even towards the beginning, (xx) explained to you the reasons why you should get up early every morning, or same time every morning, or not worry about what time you are gonna sleep at night. But at the end, take the last minute and goover someof the reasons for what you want us to do.... K e v i n suggested that Atsushi needed to go over the reasons why he wanted the audience to wake up early. Regarding topic sentences, most students except 106 Atsushi provided them at the beginning of each paragraph, just as they did i n their last presentations (problem-solving). In the first persuasive presentation, on the whole most students applied the organization K e v i n had suggested, starting wi th attention, issue, need, supports and challenge, although their orderings of these elements were not always identical wi th Kevin 's model. Unless they caused confusion, he d id not mention them; nevertheless, he pointed out the insufficient challenges of some of the students. Whi le most students tended to talk clearly about their issues and needs at relatively early stages of their presentations, some of them did not really give their challenges. According to Kev in , mentioning again the needs for changes and what the ind iv idua l would gain by following suggestions at the end of presentation is very critical. K e v i n also consistently emphasized that both factual and emot ional information would be necessary for persuasion, and that especially emotional information could convince the audience more. Reflecting on this point, he complimented the students who talked about their own experiences i n relation to their topics: e.g., "Good use of transition word, personal experiences ... a l l through the presentation. ..." (to Yasuko) and "... your own personal experiences, i n your office, in your family and what happened. A n d that that made it very good. It wasn't just, "Oh, smoking is bad." So that that was good." (to N o r i k o ) 107 FIGURE 4.18 The Structure of the Introduction, Body and Conclusion in the First Persuasive Presentation Atsushi Masayo Noriko Yasuko Attention: — present a hypothetical situation Issue: Need: Why is waking up early important? 1. Atsushi's own experience Supports I: Recommended sleeping time 1. survey (average sleeping time) 2. recommended sleeping time Supports II: Biological Clock 1. Reprograrrtming biological clock is difficult. Challenge: Keeping wake-up time and getting up early enable you to — have a long time to prepare lunch box — stay a long time in washroom -- be healthy Attention: — ask one or more direct questions requiring visible audience response Issue: So today I will suggest - to use uh: this cup which is called reusable cup, instead of - this cup, plastic cup. Need: Reusable cups will protect the environment. 1. survey on recycling and garbage in Canada Supports: Using reusable cup can save money. 1. Masayo's own experience 2. Starbucks Challenge: \ Using reusable cup can — protect environment — save money Attention: — present a hypothetical situation — ask one rhetorical question Need: Smoking causes lung cancer, asthma, and heart attack. Attention: Issue: I think smoking should be banned at public space, such as office, uh school, office, and also at at home. Supports I: Smoking at school 1. Noriko's own experience Supports II: Smoking at the office 1. Noriko's own experience Supports III: Smoking at home 1. Noriko's own experience (her father) Challenge: Speaking out "I don't like smoking." and "Smoking is bad for you." is important. Issue: Credit card is one of the most too convenient stuff, I think. Need: Credit cards can get us into difficulty. Supports I: It is easy to forget how much it has been used. 1. Yasuko's own experience (company credit card) Supports II: Credit cards encourage us to use them more. 1. a hypothetical situation Supports III: We can spend money faster than we can make it. 1. an example at police office in Japan Challenge: Be careful about using credit cards. — Using credit cards often may threaten not only yourself but also your family. 108 Finally, just like in their third presentation (problem-solving), all the Japanese students except Atsushi started their paragraphs wi th topic sentences. Atsushi d id not provide topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph i n his problem-solving, either. Throughout the course, Atsushi never provided a topic sentence at the beginning of each "paragraph." This can be assumed to be a result of the influence of Japanese rhetoric. In Japanese, a paragraph does not always start wi th a topic sentence (Hinds, 1980). Through Kevin 's explicit teaching, including scaffolded interaction w i t h h i m and his consistent feedback, the Japanese ESL students learned three methods of organization during the first six weeks, and applied them to their presentations. A t the interviews of the end of the session, responding to the question: "Wha t do you think you learned through this course?", some students answered that the methods of organization were one of the most useful things they had learned i n the class. For instance, N o r i k o said, "I feel like that I learned the orderings of how to think or organize the information. ... I feel that they are different from Japanese. For example, i n English the main points usually come first, while in Japanese they don't necessarily do so...." M a k i and Yasuko pointed out some similarities between the organizational devices of academic wr i t ing and those of public speaking i n English. M a k i responded, "I think I learned how to organize information and how to speak what I really want to say. ... I had never learned these before even i n Japanese. ... W h e n I took the academic writ ing course before, I also learned the similar k ind of organization. That was also helpful. ... Wri t ing i n English requires straightforwardness, while that i n 109 Japanese may require rather vagueness. Especially for writing, Japanese people tend to appreciate its vagueness as creative or original." Yasuko answered, "I learned the organizations which I felt were similar to those of academic wri t ing. For example, putting main ideas first, and giving examples, and so on. I had never learned them before even in Japanese. For example, K i — Shoo — Ten — Ketsu i n Japanese, ... I don't know it very well . ..." Most Japanese students said that they could apply these organizational principles to public speaking not only i n English but also i n Japanese since they had not learned any i n Japanese and did not even know whether or not there were any typical Japanese "organizational principles." In the following section, I w i l l look at how the students improved their employment of transitional devices i n presentations. (3) Transit ional Devices K e v i n introduced a variety of transitional words to the class in the third week, when students were working on their problem-solving presentations. The transitional words taught to the class were specific words and phrases for "Add ing a point," "Emphasizing a point," and so forth (see Figure 4.20). In this section, I w i l l describe how he taught them i n the class, and how the students understood their importance i n public speaking and how they applied them to their presentations. I w i l l focus on the five ind iv idua l presentations that each Japanese student made during the first six weeks of the course, and look at the change i n their use of transitional words i n their presentations. Nevertheless, since Kevin ' s emphasis was on varying students' word choices (avoiding overusing the same transitional words) rather than on achieving coherence i n 110 their presentations, my analysis w i l l also focus on the changes i n their word choices. Dur ing the first two weeks, K e v i n d id not specifically teach transitional devices i n the class. Therefore, the method of delivery and choice of transition depended solely on each student's preference or intention. In fact, students themselves d id not seem to pay much attention to their transitional words during this period of time. Many students tended to use repeatedly quite s imple words such as 'and,' 'also,' and 'so' to signal the relationship between successive episodes and moves wi th in their presentations. K e v i n d id not always point out this i n his evaluative comments; however, from time to time he s imply suggested that students should avoid using the same transitional words such as 'so' and 'also' all the time. Excerpt 19 is the text of Maki ' s first presentation. Transitional words are underl ined. 19. The First Presentation: Maki (Jan. 11th) Uh: last uh last October, I fainted, at my home. It was very surprised me, because my first experience I had beenunconsdous.Its was a kind of neat, but I was ((laugh)), at the same time, I was really scared. I thought I was losing health. Good health, because I was proud of my - very ni good health, for a longtime. Even though I had really uh: hard work, or no sleep, I was fine. But as I'm getting older, I have to be very careful, or but my uh body. So I want to talk about my uh your body, and about blood vessels. And you have blood in your body, uh: average size male has five or six liters blood in your body, and average size female has fourorfive liters of blood in your body. So it's a eight percent of yourall yourweight, so you can calculate, how muchblood you can have. Right? And when I fainted, I was so scared, but fortunately my host mother uh is nurse. So she could teach me how to I had uh: the experience like - that, and she taught me that and ah the: human body has to have certain amount blood pressure. At that time, I had my period and also I was so tired. But uh my body, know by themselves, I need more blood all my body, but the - important thing, important place to have blood is stomach and brain. So you need - uh stomach and brain. You need blood in your stomach and in your brain. So body knows that, and they (2.0) decided, OK, Maki Maki didn't have enough blood in her body now, so just - keep - have stomach and brain, is blood full, so my body decided not divide any place, - uhto my blood? So I was fainted because of that. I l l And also you have two kind of blood vessels in your body, one is name ar artery? (2.0) (Maki looked at her note) Arteries, uh (1.0) carry away a blood from heart, and another one is called vein, veins carry uh bloo blood - to heart. And do you know how long blood vessels do you have? (1.0) Can you have you ever think have you ever thought about it? And it's very um you will be surprised. You have um hundred thousand kilometers in your body - your heart, uh like that long uh blood vessels. Amd yes that was it. So: what I like to say is uh: um please take care of yourself, and have a good rest, and good sleep. Thank you very much. In this presentation, M a k i frequently used 'also,' 'and' and 'so.' K e v i n made a comment on her frequent use of the same words as follows: "... u h little bit 'so,' 'also,' (0.5) little bit i n there. ..." Nor iko was also told that she was using 'so' and 'also' quite often i n her first presentation: "... Nice eye contact, good usage of hands. Good. Y o u are using 'so' and 'also' there quite a bit. So be aware of that. ..." Other Japanese students as wel l tended to repeat the same words; however, they did not receive any particular comments on it. Al though K e v i n sometimes pointed out their tendency to repeat the same transitional words, he d id not really introduce any other words or expressions which might substitute for such 'so' or 'also' during the first two weeks. Excerpt 20 illustrates Maki ' s second presentation: 20. The Second Presentation: Maki (Jan. 17th) OK. Good morning, everybody. Uh I e two correction from my uh previous in presentation, which is one the reason because uh why I was fainted wasn't I was losing my blood. Because I didn't have enough pressure, to put push provide blood to all over the rest of my body, so that was my first correction. The second correction, I had a very strong claim from my host mother, 1 called her like -host mother last time, but she thought that makes her sounds very old, and she doesn't like that, and she prefer call I call her as a friend, (xxx) as my friend. So let me start now. Uh OK. So just imagine. In the morning, you have to go somewhere else. Maybe you have to see your girlfriend, or boyfriend, and you have to goto the work. But once when you got into the car, the car doesn't start. You cannot go. So what do you do the next next step? Maybe you think about maybe you don't have enough gas in your fuel tank. Or your battery die. So you can actual look at inside of your car, and you can find what's wrong, or you can just call an engineer and he can look at your car inside actual. But think. If you have something some problem in your body, you can't see. So ifs very difficult to find out. (2.0) Even though you are i_f you are professional medical staff, uh maybe you are doctor or nurse, but they can't exactly - maybe probably know what's wrong, but they don't know quite well. And but even though professional medical people like that, for you it's very difficult. 112 And let me tell you something about your blood vessel. Your blood vessel, can you imagine how long they are. It almost more than two times of the: - length? (Instructor) Distance. Distance of all the earth. Twice! Can you imagine that? So Lo::ng, and you have so many blood vessels in your body, so you have many possibilities something wrong in your blood vessels and in your body. So your body has a many many secret and uh that's very uh quite amazing. And average sized male has four or five liters of blood in your body, and female has four or three liters of blood in your body. So uh that provides all oxygen - you in inhaled, if you breathe that oxygen come to your lungs, and that oxygen has a glycogenjmd some good things all your body, so your blood vessels uhlike a road, ona street. Your blood vessels like uh your blood is like your transportation, to uh to carry all your need uh oxygen, or something what you need to - bring many places in your body. And you have two different kind of vessels in your body, one is arteries which provides you fresh - fresh blood. The color is very very - very very red. If you cut the artery, the blood comes out like this. ((Y demonstrated how it comes out with her hands)) And sometimes maybe you can see in a movie, somebody cut like here, blood comes out like this. That's so gross. And another one is a vein. Uh vein carries old old blood to the heart. And if you cut the vein, the blood comes out (1.0) like like through like a water, so that's not so big problem. Maybe can be. ((laugh)) And and so the: once you got two kinds of vessels, and many blood, you have to keep your blood is healthy, and your blood vessel is healthy. So what you can do is you can eat healthy food which are like - deep color vegetable, fish, and not so many red meat, and uh yeah if ifs possible, you can you may avoid many oils especially animal oils. And good exercise, and good rest, so you may live longer, and - with have - healthy body, onall the rest of your life. And I hope all of you uhhave good health, and good life. Thank you very much. Al though M a k i d id not use 'also' this time, she still used 'and' and 'so' quite frequently; however, this time K e v i n d id not make any comment. In fact, he did not give any suggestions concerning transitional words to students i n their second presentation. Figure 4.19 shows the transitional words the Japanese students employed for their first and second presentations. Since most students provided more information i n their second presentations than i n their first ones, they used more transitional words. For instance, i n the second presentation Yoshimi gave twice as much information as she d id in her first one; consequently, she ut i l ized more transitional words. Al though some students sometimes seemed to try to vary the words in their second presentations, most of the time they repeated the same words such as 'and,' 'also' and 'so.' Most students' word choices d id not 113 significantly change in their second presentations, despite the fact that in their first ones K e v i n sometimes suggested avoiding overusing the same transitional words. Dur ing the first two weeks, students d id not appear to pay much attention to transitional devices. FIGURE 4.19 Transitional Words in the First and Second Presentation 1st presentation 2nd presentation Atsushi and after but and if at that time or because so but first if or so Maki and and also because at that time but at the same time even though because if but once even though or or so so when when Masayo after after and also because and but but finally especially first of a l l finally for instance first of a 11 if for instance or or so so when Noriko also also and and at that time at first because at that time but because especially but except or for example so so such as when 114 Yasuko also also and and at that time because because before but but finally especially if if or so so such as when Yoshimi and and but after for example at that time or before so but when even though for example however on the other hand or since so unfortunately At the beginning of the third week, Kevin introduced a variety of transitional words to the class. First, he explained the importance of transitional words in fluent speech: "... Transition words make your speaking more complex and better. They make it sound fluent." He also advised students not to use the same transition words all the time. Hinds (1985) argues that English readers or listeners expect and require landmarks along the way and it is the speaker's or writer's task to provide appropriate transitional devices. In order to achieve coherence and avoid confusion, speakers need to guide their audience with the assistance of transitions. Some textbooks on public speaking further suggest providing those transitional words to announce the proposition, the first main heading, subheads, each new heading, and the closing remarks (e.g., Barrett, 1987). As Kevin had also suggested, they advised speakers to vary word, phrase, 115 and sentence choices occasionally. Al though K e v i n d id not explicitly refer to the former point (achieving coherence), he emphasized the importance of varying their word choices and handed out a list of various transitional words (Figure 4.20). FIGURE 4.20 TRANSITIONAL DEVICES Adding a point and another furthermore also a second point in the same way besides likewise in addition next too or as well as again in addition further by comparison moreover Emphasizing a point above a 11 in fact especially certainly to be sure in particular chiefly without doubt even more important doubtless unquestionably to repeat indeed for sure Showing similarity in like manner in the same way similarly Introducing examples or details specifically for example namely for instance such as in particular as you can see that is for one thing to illustrate the following in fact Restating a point in other words to put it another way in effect in short similarly that is to say that is if we look at it from a different perspective Introdudnga contrast or qualification although unlike whereas but while after a l l conversely yet admittedly however despite in spite of in contrast surely if nevertheless unfortunately 116 nonetheless on the contrary on the other hand otherwise still conversely granted even i f occasionally then therefore thus it follows that Showing result/cause and effect as because for for that reason since accordingly as a result consequently hence so Showing connectionsin time before previously formerly once earlier now presently meanwhile at this time at present Indicating chronology or sequence finally first, second,third ... first, secondly, thirdly ... (do not use firstly) next in the first place, second place ... at first to begin with next, also, then, moving along at the end, at last, finally Concluding (try to aim for something more original than "in conclusion") in brief as a result to sumup therefore on the whole consequently finally accordingly all together to conclude as we have seen thus lastly next tomorrow immediately soon in the future shortly at the same time simultaneously at this time after when thereafter lately eventually subsequently ultimately final in the past In class, K e v i n referred only to the sections ' A d d i n g a point' and 'Introducing a contrast or qualification.' He chose one student to read one section at a t ime 117 aloud, and had other students make sentences by using one of the transitional words from that section. He suggested that students try using one or two new transitional words a week unti l they became natural and habitual. Figure 4.21 presents the transitional words Japanese students uti l ized for their third, fourth and fifth presentations. The transitional words they never used in their first and second presentations are italicized. FIGURE 4.21 Transitional Words in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Presentations 3rd presentation 4th presentation 5th presentation Atsushi and and also because at that time and beside because as but but because especially if besides even though or but first so especially now then finally or when if so now or so when Maki after also and and and as as as because because at that time before before because but but but especially even though for example even though if if if or now on the other hand so so or when therefore so when still then unfortunately when 118 Masayo after also after also and also and because and at first but because but for instance but finally however first now if for instance or in addition however so now if such a s on the other hand or then or so unfortunately so such a s when Noriko also also after and and and at that time at first because because because before but but but for example especially if or however or so if or so such as when since so still Yasuko also also also and and and at that time as if as because because because before before but but but especially even though even if first first even though for example for example for example if if however in addition next in addition next now or now on the other hand so on the other hand or when or otherwise second so so therefore third thirdly when while 119 Yoshimi also after after and also and as and as at first but at that time because for example because but or but for example so even though however the first for example if the second fourth otherwise when if or on the other hand so or third second so then third when O n the whole, students still tended to overuse 'also,' 'and,' 'so,' and so forth as they d id i n their first and second presentations; however, they also used other words i n their third, fourth and fifth ones, which they had never used before. 'Even though,' 'on the other hand,' 'therefore,' 'however,' ' i n addition,' 'unfortunately' and 'otherwise' were the words (introducing a contrast or qualification) that began to appear i n their presentations. These words tended to be the ones students had actually practiced using i n the class. Moreover, many students began to use 'first,' 'second,' ' third, ' 'next' and 'then' in order to show connections i n time or to indicate chronology or sequence. A t the same time that they started to state their topic sentences at the beginning of the "paragraphs" (see the previous section), some of them also started to use these words to introduce the proposition, the first main heading, subheads, etc. For example, in her fifth presentation, Yasuko provided these to introduce each main heading: 21. The Fifth Presentation (the 2nd persuasive presentation): Yasuko (Feb. 13th) So look at this travel guide. It's very beautiful. So nature very friendly, and also uh attract uh: nature has attracted us. - Uh: traveling in the nature is very - um uh reduce our stress and make us very comfortable. On the other hand, look at these garbage. Dirty, smell bad, disgusting. So 120 tourist - leave - those garbage. Uh: now tourism ruin landscapes, destroy community, and pollute air and water. Over thirty years, uh increase in leisure time. In addition, available cheap travel. Uh therefore, numberof tourist - is increasing. So that's why uh the tourist destroy - our planet. I think some people in here wonder how tourist destroy our planet. But it is true. So I give you some: uh example. So one, uh tourism threaten our threaten local people's life. Uh, for example, this is my personal uh experience. When I was kids, 1 sometimes went to - mountain, and walk around or play with my friend, and one of my favorite thing is uh: drink water from the uh: - spring. Yeah, it was really tasty and also very clean. But now I cannot do it any more. Because um about several years ago, one golf course was (1.0) built, and as you know golf course keep beautiful green. So chemical soak into the land, and the so probably uh the water from the spring contain a lot of chemical. So I cannot drink the water any more. And second, uh: tourism destroy the (1.5) some of the most beautiful world - region, world place. Uh: Alps, everyone knows Alps. It's very popular place, uh: skiing, uh: paragliding, and rafting. So many therefore many people go to Alps and out of building accommodation was uh has been built in Alps. So in consequence of construction of building, uh forest have been destroyed, and soil (x) away. And wild life disturbed. Uh: thirdly, uh: traffic, traffic - try able causes traffic congestion end of pollution. Especially car, using car uh while we are traveling, it's very convenient. But uh car is the most pollu - pollutant of all transportation. And also ca ca not ca car cau car causes (x) gasses. For example, carbon dioxide, and introgenoxide. It's it's causes acid rain, uh: which is uh damages our uh: uh which is damages - plant and goods. And also it's - it's threaten our health. So now you know, how tourism destroyed - our our environment. So next we have to know what can we do. So in some country/government support uh: some project which protect our environment from - from the tourism. This is uh: my example, so but most of place uh has no rule or no (cause?) to protect or tourist behavior. So I'll tell you what can we do individually. First, using public transportation instead of car. Before I mention car is mot pollutant - pollutant transportation. Next uh avoiding the avoiding the peek time. It's to prevent uh overcrowding. And third, uh considering rights uh lo local people's life. And also respecting local -people's privacy. And next buying some local pro - local products and eating food uh local no no restaurant and cafe, which local - person - owns.Those point - is important. And so travel is pleasure. So no one is suggestingif s should not be, but we have to protect our we have to protect our environment. So now we know what what can we do.Each person can do very small thing. But if many person do, ifs very effective. So we have to we should do, so from next travel, let's doit. Finish. Although K e v i n only taught transitional devices one time, and although the students' methods of employing transition words might still have been i n progress, they seemed to understand the importance of providing transitional words and varying them. Their awareness of them was in fact raised very m u c h after K e v i n taught them i n the class. For instance, after watching their v ideo tapes i n the video tape reviews conducted i n the fourth and fifth weeks, both 121 Atsushi and M a k i said that what they most needed to improve i n future presentations was their ways of using transitional words. In the case of Yasuko, moreover, her efforts to vary word choice became quite obvious i n her third, fourth and fifth presentations. 21. Excerpt from Instructor's Evaluative CommentsonYasuko's 3rd presentation Kevin: ... Very good presentation. One, yeah you often say 'so' and 'also'. Yasuko: But I try to use another transition. Kevin: You did? Try harder. Yasuko: Once, you know,'otherwise' I said. Probably next time I three or four, ((laugh)) Kevin: Maybe use'otherwise' twice next time, ((laugh)) From this excerpt it can be seen that Yasuko consciously attempted to use other transitional words instead of repeating words such as 'so' and 'also.' In her 4th presentation, furthermore, she sometimes corrected herself after using these words; however, she still used 'also,' 'and' and 'so' frequently (see Excerpt 22). 22. Excerpt from Yasuko's 4th presentation And also credit card encourage us use more, more uh: use credit card more. Uh for example, uh: impulse buying, impulse buying uh: I don't have money, but OK I have card, I can buy. This kind of thing happen. And also uh: in addition, credit card uh: ((laugh)) card limited uh getting rise ri getting rise uh automatically, uh so we misunderstand. Uh card limited high, we can buy more, more. But - uh who pay? Who pay the - who pay who pay? Uh I pay or H I don't have any money, my family have to pay. ((laugh)) So it seems uh: as if if s easy very easy to get credit card and also to buy using credit card. But i f s very hard to pay back uh pay back money and also interest. Interest is quite high. Uh: so so and also if s a pressure to to - to find uh extra money to pay. Spending money is faster than making money. (3.0) In the third line i n this excerpt, she replaced ' A n d also' wi th ' i n addition' after articulating the former. A m o n g the Japanese students, Yasuko's attention to transitional words was particularly remarkable. In fact, probably because of her obvious efforts, K e v i n always gave her comments on her transitional words. In the interviews at the middle and end of the session, it was also clear that their awareness of transitional words had really been raised by K e v i n ' s instruction. Most students mentioned transitional words as one of the important 122 things they learned through the course. M a k i said, "... I learned that provid ing transition words makes a conversation or a speech alive." Both Yasuko and Atsushi pointed out the importance of providing transitional words in speeches. Yasuko said, "... Transition words are important. They show the landmarks along the way to listeners." Atsushi also said, "... If it were not for transition words, listeners w i l l have difficulty to know what the speaker really mean to say. ..." Nor iko told me, " M y speaking used to be rather intermittent. But I learned about transition words i n this class." Interestingly, although K e v i n d id not particularly mention the relationship between transitional devices and listener comprehension, most Japanese students appeared to understand the importance of transitional words as aids to the listener. After Kevin ' s explicit teaching, the Japanese ESL students' awareness of the importance of providing transitional words was raised, and they started using words they had never used before. In the next section, I w i l l look at h o w the students learned various sentence patterns and applied them to their presentations. (4) Sentence Paterns A t the end of the fourth week, when students were working on their first persuasive presentations, K e v i n introduced various sentence patterns to the class. In this section, I w i l l describe how these patterns were taught i n the class, and how students applied them to their presentations. In order to examine the changes i n their sentence patterns, I w i l l focus on the five i n d i v i d u a l presentations that each student gave during the first six weeks of the course. 123 U n t i l the end of the fourth week, K e v i n never mentioned sentence patterns in the class. Therefore, i n their first three presentations, students employed whatever sentence patterns they wished, depending on their preferences or intentions. A t the end of the fourth week, before the first persuasive presentation, K e v i n introduced a variety of sentence patterns to the students. Figure 4.22 is a handout of the list of sentence patterns. F I G U R E 4.22 S E N T E N C E P A T T E R N S 1. Begin with the subject. The sea is a whole world unto itself. 2. Begin with a prepositional phrase. In the past, the treasures of the sea were thought to be limitless. 3. Begin with an adverb. Slowly the sea reveals its secrets to us. 4. Begin with a gerund. Swimming in the Mediterranean is like bathing in a large turquoise tub. 5. Begin with an infinitive phrase. To protect our future on this earth we must protect ocean life as well. 6. Begin with a present participle phrase. Slamming the choppy surface, pelicans search hungrily for their evening meal. 7. Begin with a past participle phrase. Satisfied with the day's catch, the sun-parched fisherman turned his boat toward shore. 8. Begin with an adverbial clause. Whenever man sails away from his homeland, he is inevitably caught by the romance of the sea. 9. Use an appositive. The Pacific, the largest body of water on the planet, touches the shores of six continents. 10. Ask a question. Who wouldn't want to sail off to a tropical island? 11. Use an exclamation. Beware the fury of an Atlantic storm! 12. Use conversation. The captain warned, "All those with queasy stomachs should stay by the rail." 124 Al though the list contains twelve sentence patterns, in class K e v i n referred to only the first five. He chose one student to read aloud one pattern at a time, and asked other students to make a sentence using that structure. His goal here appeared to be to improve the variety of sentences i n the students' speeches. Some guidebooks for public speaking also recommend that speakers should arrange their language into clear and varied sentences (e.g., White, 1978). However, compared to the previously discussed elements (Hook, Organizational Principles, Transition Devices), K e v i n d id not seem to put a great deal of effort into varying the students' sentence patterns. For instance, he never made any comments on this issue i n the presentations, even after he taught it to the class. Figure 4.23 illustrates the sentence patterns students employed for their presentations. The numbers i n the table correspond to those i n the sentence pattern list K e v i n handed out to the class. FIGURE 4.23 Sentence Paterns in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Presentations 1st presentation 2nd presentation 3rd presentation 4th presentation 5th presentation Atsushi 1.3. 8.9. 1. 3. 8.10. 1. 2. 3. 8. 1. 2. 3. 5. 8. 10. 12. 1.2. 3. 8. 9. 10. 12. Maki 1.2. 3. 8.10. 1. 2. 3. 8.10. 1.3. 8.12. 1. 2. 3. 8. 10. 12. I. 2. 3. 8. 10. II . Masayo 1. 2. 3. 4. 8.10. 1. 2. 3. 8. 10. 12. 1. 2. 3. 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 8.10. 1. 2. 3. 8.12. Noriko 1. 2. 3.12. 1. 2. 3. 8. 10. 12. 1. 2. 3.10. 1.2. 3. 4. 8. 10. 12. 1. 2. 3. 7. 8. 10. 12. Yasuko 1. 2. 3. 8.12. 1. 2. 3. 4. 8.10. 1. 2. 3. 8. 10. 12. 1. 2. 3. 4. 8. 10. 12. 1. 2. 3. 4. 8. Yoshimi 1. 2. 5. 8. 1. 2. 3.10. 1. 2. 3. 8.10. 1.3.8. 1.2. 3. 5. 8.10. The Figure tells us how many and what k ind of sentence patterns each student employed for each presentation. For example, Atsushi employed four sentence patterns (Begin wi th the subject, an adverb, an adverbial clause, and use an 125 appositive) i n his first presentation. O n the whole, students appeared to vary sentence patterns more i n their fourth and fifth presentations than i n their first, second and third ones. Moreover, although K e v i n discussed only the first five patterns i n the class, most students employed some of the other patterns as wel l . However, we cannot really see significant changes i n their employment of sentence patterns through the five presentations. For example, Masayo, N o r i k o and Yasuko tended to vary sentence patterns from the beginning. A t the end of the session, only Atsushi referred to this issue: " K e v i n taught us that there are various ways of starting sentences, not only wi th a subject. For instance, beginning wi th an adverb or a prepositional phrase. That information was very helpful." Other Japanese students never mentioned sentence patterns i n their interviews. Their awareness of varying sentence patterns i n their speeches did not really seem to be raised as much as that of transitional words was. Despite Kevin 's explicit instruction, significant changes i n the students' sentence patterns were not recognizable, and their awareness of them were not raised, either. In the following section, I w i l l look at how the students learned the expressions for stating opinions and making arguments and applied them to their presentations. (5) Opinions and Arguments Because of the addition of "Question Periods" to their fifth presentations, K e v i n taught the students appropriate expressions for giving opinions and making arguments i n English at the beginning of the fifth week. In this section, I w i l l describe how students learned these expressions and applied them to their 126 presentations and question periods. I w i l l here look at the fifth presentations (the second persuasive presentation) i n order to examine how the students actually uti l ized these expressions. Even before the beginning of the fifth week, K e v i n sometimes talked about appropriate ways of expressing opinions or giving suggestions i n English. For instance, when Atsushi and a Taiwanese student were doing a role play (persuasive situation) (see Excerpt 15, p. 42), K e v i n interrupted them and suggested that they use certain expressions for disagreeing wi th another's opinion: e.g., " O K , I understand that, however, ..." or " Y o u know, I see what you say, but ..." He cautioned that certain words and expressions might sometimes sound very aggressive and would not be proper for giving opinions or making arguments. v A t the beginning of the fifth week, when students started preparing for their second persuasive presentations, K e v i n introduced a variety of proper expressions for giving opinions or making arguments (Figure 4.24). F I G U R E 4.24 O P I N I O N S A N D A R G U M E N T S Giving Opinions/Stating An Argument. I honestly feel... I'm sure... I'm almost positive... I think/feel... As I see it... As far as I'm concerned... I {strongly} believe... In my opinion... I personally think... I'd like to point out... Asking For Opinions. What doyouthink? What's your view? Do you agree? How do you see i t ? What's youropinion? Agreeing With A n Argument That's true. Exactly. You're absolutely right. I agree. I agree completely. That's a good point. 1 2 7 I feel the same. That's just what I think. Disagreeing With A n Argument However... On the other hand... Al l right, but don't you think... On the contrary... Challenging An Argument That can't be true. But what about...? Clarifying A n Argument What I said was... Let me repeat/rephrase that. Giving Examples. For example... To illustrate my point... Asking Questions. Could you tell me...? I was wondering... Can you tell me...? Answering Questions. My understanding is... As I understand it... I'm afraid I disagree. That's not completely true. That's different. Are you seriously suggesting that...? I did not say...what I said was... I'm not saying that. What I am saying is... Take for example... I'd like to give you an example. I'd like to know... Do you by an chance know...? As far as I know... To the best of my knowledge. K e v i n handed out this list (Figure 4.24) to students, and asked one student at a time to read aloud one section. From time to time he gave suggestions to the students, following their readings. For instance, he suggested that students use T to state whose opinion it is, when they give opinions or state an argument, and that they should stress 'you' whenever they use expressions for asking for opinions: e.g., "What do you think?" Moreover, he recommended that they should not start by saying 'no' when they want to disagree wi th another's argument. The expressions i n the list and Kevin 's suggestions are not usually discussed i n textbooks on public speaking; however, words and expressions l ike these are critical for ESL students attempting to give opinions or make arguments clearly i n English. Al though K e v i n d id not really spend a lot of t ime 128 on this issue i n class, his suggestions appeared to impact on students. For example, at the impromptu presentation after he taught these expressions, M a k i employed a few of them immediately (Excerpt 23). This presentation included a question period. 23. Impromptu Presentation (Feb. 6th): Maki Kevin: What is your opinion on fast food? Maki: Fast food. Uh I strongly believe fast food is not good food for - youngkid. Because fast food contain very poor nutrition, and small kids need rich nutrition to become big and strong. (0.5) Yes, Kevin? Kevin: 11 disagree with you. I think that uh things like uh hamburgers and foods like that are best foods. They are good for children, using a lot of protein - in their diet. They are complete meal right there, (x) hamburgers, easy to get, inexpensive, and get a child a lot of protein, so they can grow strong. (0.5) What do you think about that? Maki: Uh: that's not completely true, in my opinion. Because I knowa couple uh I read, I have read a couple of articles which about fast food - give gave gives youngkids, - uh causes youngkids (x), - or some mental weakness, so - soon. So that's why I believe ((laugh)) your opinion is not completely true. Kevin: Ask her questions or comments. Yasuko: Yes, what do you thi nk uh uh - fast food is good, not good, you think not good for children. How about adult? Maki: OK. Your question is fast food good, not good for kids, but how about for adult. Yasuko: Yeah. Maki: I believe, uh I think uh for adult uh you might have some nostalgy towards fast food. Kevin: Nostalgia. Maki: Nostalgia... M a k i used several expressions from the handout 'Opinions and Arguments ' : "1 strongly believe...," "That's not completely true," "In my opinion...," "I believe/think.;." Yasuko also used the expression: "What do you think...?" to ask M a k i for her opinion. In this excerpt, moreover, giving his opinion and asking M a k i for her opinion of it, K e v i n himself demonstrated how to give and ask for opinions. Through this presentation and other similar practices, students seemed to learn how to actually apply those expressions listed i n the handout for stating opinions, making arguments and so forth. A t the second persuasive presentations, which included question periods, most students util ized some expressions from the handout to give their 129 opinions assertively or make their arguments clearly. Since most students tended to use these expressions in their question periods rather than in their speeches, I will present.some of their texts from question periods here. Excerpt 24 is Maki's. The expressions from the list Kevin handed out are underlined, and the words which were not exactly the same but similar are also underlined. J refers to a Korean female student. 24. The SecondPersuasive Presentation (QuestionPeriod): Maki (Feb. 13th) Maki: Any questions? J: You mentioned that a free sexual activities. I think that's for. - But how about for women? Do you think that womendoesn'thave any sexual desire or something? that is for - for womenl for womenl think they have free sexual activities, too, either. Maki: Right. OK. A has a question, was a sexual free sexual activities is not only for men but also for women. I agree. But uh le uh: please think about afterwards. If you separated, if you got married, that's OK. But uhif you separated, menhas just good experience, but women just can have bad history, ((laugh)) That's true. There is another proverb, most happiest womenhave no history. Do you know that? Kevin: I will respond to that. I my my problem here is not she showed that womenare inferior or not, but stereotypes. So you are saying that you know that womenare supposed to get married as soonas possible, and menstay unmarried as long as possible, sol disagree with the stereotype - that uh men only want to live with womenbecause they want to have somebody clean upafter that and free sex.... What would yousay about that? Maki: OK. Uh Kevin's question was maybe very clear and I think everybody understand and ((laugh)) maybe. But uh I believe uh: that (1.5) I hope uh: there are no stereotype both men and womenbut still because oursodety was keep going from long time ago, and those proverbs very uh: very ol uh - made - in - longtime ago. Still and still these proverbs are not old fashion. Can you believe that? Is the anything uh: in uh: discovered two hundred or three hundred years ago still we can think that fresh. But these proverbs are still fresh I believe. Yes? Atsushi:So I'm not I'm not clear, you want to say that historic historic trend? - in your country, uh tradition. Maki: Uh? Historic? Atsushi: Yeah, historic trend of Japan? Historic uh oppress oppo oppressing oppress history for women [from a longtime ago? you want to say? Maki: [Uh: you mean we are we are, uh: not really because those uh: his question was I'd like to say to you that uh in Japan we have a very long term of history men women uh looked down by men, so do I like to say that? Atsushi:Yeah, yeah. Maki: [No, because it's if s so obviously and in Japan we have different uh looks like men and womenlook different. ... And the world is still men's world, I believe. So I like to uh what's I like to say to you is uh even though you have you love somebody and you believe somebody, but still we have unconsdouslyand consdously we have uh la womensand men are different, ... And I wanna say, Take care of yourself, and yeah, be positive towards (x).' Yes? Masayo: Uh, how what do you think about the situation, they are couples, they promised to get married, but they want to live together before marriage, actually my brother did. My 130 brother got married with Chinese girl, they stayed with for uh with uh her uh each other fortwoyear oroneyear, and they get married. What doyouthink aboutthat? Maki: Uh, her question was she has a brother who married to Chinese girl, and their case was very happy case, I think. And I really happy for your brother and your uh: sister of law. But uh happy case is fine, and 11 really think everybody I hope everybody would be happy. But at least uhl'd like you to know the real situation. Masayo: So generally you disagree with living together even they promise to [get Maki: Yes, because the your brother case was uh: ended up happy end, but some case if you live together, for example, sometimes you will cho choose one couch together and pay together. And and ((laugh)) after living together you may find uh bad things towards your partner, and you will begin to think he is not my soul mate. ... And I think living together before marriage have disadvantages like that more than advantages. Although M a k i d id not use a great variety of these expressions, she used some here and there to prove her points. Moreover, when she disagreed w i t h someone, as K e v i n had suggested she first expressed understanding, and then expressed her disagreement: T agree. But uh... please think about afterwards." and "... I think everybody understand and ((laugh)) maybe. But uh I believe u h : that..." Al though there were differences in employment of these expressions among students, other students also used some of the expressions from the handout list to state their opinions and arguments. Excerpt 25 is Nor iko ' s question period. 25. The Second Persuasive Presentation (Question Period): Noriko (Feb. 13th) Masayo: Doyouhave any idea ((cough)) to let Canadians use handkerchief? Noriko: You mean how to use - how to let use handkerchief? Masayo: Let them use. How? Noriko: I in my opinion, there if there are some good very fancy handkerchief a lot in a shop and Canadian can see can see the very fashionable handkerchief. I think Canadian will buy handkerchief because in here I never buy handkerchief because there are no good handkerchief. So if there are some good handkerchief, I think Canadian will buy it. CA: How long does it last? (xx) ((laugh)) You can wash it but Noriko: Actually actually this handkerchief, I used for I have used for two years or three years. But still I think it's good. Kevin: You know if they are made of good cotton, they will last forever. Maki: Uh I just I just talk to my friend about handkerchief - maybe a month ago, she is Canadian. She says in her experience many people uh mostly man use handkerchief as a they spit they spit ona handkerchief, and she thought she thinks handkerchief is very dirty, (x) So what doyouthink how uh - what is the proper way to use handkerchief? [(x) spit handkerchief or? 131 Noriko: II believe, (1.0) no. I think you the person should use tissue or Kleenex. Maki: So the handkerchief can only use after washing hand? Noriko: Or like napkin? Atsushi: Or (xx) handkerchief. Noriko: Yeah, to (xx). Atsushi: How do you think uh the the campaign to ban to to ban the any paper towel or uh napkin paper napkin from the washroom or (x)? Noriko: You mean we should ban using Atsushi: Yeah, actually Japan has that kind of movement. Noriko: I think in my opinion, in my opinion, I if s better to use hand hand handkerchief instead of paper napkin or paper towe. But still we can I think if s very - sometimes we - people can forget - to bring handkerchief or something. So if s 11 can't say the it's better (x) we uh we should ban - handker uh: napkin or towel in a washroom. But I think if s better to think about handkerchief bring handkerchief. Just I think even thinking is more important than ban something. Trying is more important. Noriko also utilized such expressions from the list as "in my opinion," "I think" and "I believe" here and there, although she tended to repeat these words. Kevin made a comment on her question period: "... You answered the questions as well. ... We were really sure what you were gonna say...." Figure 4.25 presents other Japanese students' texts in their question periods. Only the parts where they employed those expressions from the list or similar ones are presented. FIGURE 4.25 Expressions for Opinions and Arguments at Question Periods (the Second Persuasive Presentation) Atsushi Masayo "Yeah, I think it's true. I think if s true, but uh the reason whv I believe this idea is uh: I believe longtime effect?" "And marijuana is just for fun maybe, and uh marijuana is for the people want to get sell uh want to get money, uh selling, so uh I think marijuana is easier uh much easier to control by government. "But I as I said, uh most people don't want to (xx)." "... some people believe that uh marijuana use be directly to use of hard drugs such as (x) and cocaine, that is true that some users of hard drugsstarted out with marijuana. But it's not true." 132 Yasuko "So mavbe I think later I'm going to read this one completely, so after that 1 can tell you. Yeah." "Um, many people want to umget a lot of money or many company. That's why some company make a lot of accommodation, so um: in mv opinion, company has to first, individually, people has to do something. But first uh company can do something." "Yeah, I think so. Not so strong law but um: I think government has to (1.0). Yeah." "Um, I think people believe uh TV TV TV or newspaper. So newspaper or some TV program has that kind of program, - has to that kind of program. So maybe, for example, I I completely believe newspaper or TV. Yeah, not completely but ((laugh)). So I think it's very effect TV is very effective." "Yeah, I think so. But I think both of them important. So but very if very there is uh government made a strong law. manv people against, especially (1.0) I think [some company..." Yoshimi "I think Kevin's Kevin mentioned before, the the: you can choose the information uh you can..." Masayo utilized some expressions from the list to prove her points: "I think," "1 believe" and "That (It) is (not) true." Moreover, as Kevin had advised, when she disagreed with another's opinion, she sometimes expressed her understanding first, and then disagreed: "I think it's true, but..." Yasuko also used some expressions from the list: "1 think (so)," "in my opinion," "for example, ..." and "I completely believe." Although Kevin did not particularly refer to her question period, he commented that on the whole she expressed her points clearly and she knew what she wanted to say. Neither Atsushi nor Yoshimi had much time for their question periods since they spent a lot of time on their speeches. Therefore, Atsushi did not use any of those expressions, and Yoshimi used only one. On the whole, Kevin did not really mention this issue in his evaluative comments; however, he sometimes referred to the clarity of students' opinions or arguments, as he did with Noriko and Yasuko. 133 Through Kevin 's explicit instruction, the Japanese ESL students learned expressions for giving opinions and making arguments, and used some of them in the question periods of their second persuasive presentations. A t the interview i n the end of the session, Atsushi referred to this issue, " K e v i n taught us some expressions for persuading people. That was very useful. Certain words might sometimes sound aggressive." 134 Chapter Five DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was twofold: to explore the usefulness of public speaking and debating activities for an ESL classroom; and to discover how the Japanese students developed their oral English skills in a public speaking and debating class for advanced ESL students. Focusing on language and rhetorical features of individual oral presentations which advanced Japanese ESL students acquired in a real-life classroom, in the previous chapter I have described how these students were socialized into the appropriate use of their target language to work on one recurrent speech event, 'individual oral presentation,' in the particular classroom context. In this chapter, I will first present a discussion of the findings of the study, corresponding to my research questions, and then provide pedagogical and research implications. Discussion of the Study Despite the fact that many scholars and classroom teachers have advocated the potential usefulness of public speaking and debating activities for ESL or EFL classrooms, almost no empirical studies have been conducted to investigate how these activities should be taught in the classroom and how students develop their language skills by working on these activities. The present study was conducted to answer the following questions. 135 1. How were the public speaking and debating activities employed in a certain ESL classroom? What kinds of other tasks or activities were utilized to enable students to become accustomed to doing these major activities? In order to capture the whole picture of Japanese ESL students' socialization processes, examining the whole course and the relationships between major events and other tasks or activities conducted i n the class was indispensable (Doyle & Carter, 1984), although the main focus of the study was a specific speech activity such as the ind iv idua l presentation. In the previous chapter, I have briefly described the course processes of that particular class. The Advanced Public Speaking and Debating Class, intensively observed in this study, was designed to acquaint the advanced ESL students wi th a wide variety of speaking skills, specifically using English i n the context of i n d i v i d u a l presentations, meetings, discussions, and debates. Consequently, almost all the major events and other tasks or activities were aimed at developing students' public speaking and debating skills in English. The major events that were held during the three-month period were five ind iv idua l presentations, one panel discussion, one debate, and optional smal l issue discussions and a panel discussion (see Figure 4.1). Each event was conducted one by one every week or every other week. The first six weeks were spent on three kinds of ind iv idua l presentations: informative, problem-solving, and persuasive. Then, from the seventh week group work such as panel discussion and debate started to be conducted. The order of all these events was organized by K e v i n and was clearly communicated to the students at the beginning of the course. The students were required first to give "factual" 136 presentations, then to persuade the audience of a particular belief or opinion, and finally to debate certain issues. It was apparent to me that this sequence of events enabled Japanese ESL students in that class to participate in increasingly demanding events, which were at first beyond their capabilities. During the first six weeks Kevin taught almost all the language aspects and rhetorical principles which were assumed to be necessary for students to do their presentations. Five language and rhetorical features were specifically introduced one by one, frequently corresponding to the kind of presentation students were working on. For example, because of the addition of 'Question Periods' to the fifth presentation, appropriate expressions for giving opinions and making arguments were taught just before that presentation. Kevin employed various kinds of tasks or activities to help students master those language and rhetorical features: impromptu presentation, role play, brainstorming, and outlining (see Figure 4.2, 4.3, 4.4). Some of these activities required the cooperative interaction of Kevin and the students (Mohan & Smith, 1992). With the major events, these tasks or activities were arranged and sequenced by Kevin. Moreover, Kevin consistently reminded students of the importance of the "performance" aspects of presentation such as voice projection and body language. They were all employed with the aim of helping the students to be socialized into a recurrent speech event, individual presentation. Doyle and Carter (1984) argue that the study of classroom structure reveals "how events in classrooms are arranged and interrelated in time and space and how organization affects learning" (p. 129). The present study demonstrated that the major events and other tasks or activities worked in concert in the actual 137 classroom, and also indicated that not only direct instruction by K e v i n but also the organization of the course including the sequence of the events and tasks really affected the students' learning of public speaking skills in English. 2. What kinds of language features and rhetorical principles were in fact introduced in that class which focused on public speaking and debating skils? Al though the potential of public speaking and debating for language learning has been articulated, the aspects of language that students may acquire through them have rarely been studied i n detail. This study attempted to i l luminate this area by applying the theory of contrastive rhetoric. A s I have described i n the previous chapter, five language and rhetorical themes were introduced i n the class observed i n this study: Hook, Organizational Principles of Presentation, Transitional Devices, Sentence Patterns, and Opinions and Arguments. These features were taught by K e v i n during the first six weeks w h e n students were working on their ind iv idua l presentations. Al though the course was listed as a "communication" course, the improvement of pronunciation was not a focus. K e v i n rarely paid attention to students' pronunciation unless it was necessary to clarify meaning. The result showed that all the language and rhetorical features which K e v i n taught, except the last one, opinions and arguments, are usually discussed and valued in most guide- or text-books o n public speaking and debating i n English (e.g., Barrett, 1987; Sternberg, 1984; White, 1978); they are pervasive standards among public speakers and debaters i n the English speaking environment. They are also some of the features of the rhetorical structure of English as a speaker/writer responsible language (Hinds, 138 1987). Regarding this issue, Foreman-Takano (1992) claims that engaging in English debate of any kind enables ESL or EFL students to learn some elements of the rhetoric of their target language as responsible speakers/writers. In the following sections, I will describe the characteristics of each language or rhetorical aspects Kevin introduced to the class. — H o o k ( I n t r o d u c t i o n ) The idea of "Hook" (Attention-Getter Options), which was taught in the second week and seemed to impact greatly on the students, includes twelve options for setting up an introduction to a presentation: e.g., 1. Make a shocking statement, 2. Ask one or more direct questions requiring visible audience response, etc. (see Figure 4.5) Instead of just stating "I'm going to talk about...," Kevin encouraged students to use "Hook" to relate their topics to the audience. He also suggested that in the introduction a speaker provides an overview of his/her presentation, including topic statement and main ideas. Moreover, not being apologetic at the beginning of the speech was advised. All these devices are suggested in most guidebooks on public speaking (e.g., Barrett, 1984; White, 1978). To attract attention and develop interest, speakers should begin by employing a startling statement, asking the audience a striking question, or using humor, a quotation, or statistics. Then, they need to state the point of the speech, and explain how the body is to be developed (Barrett, 1984; White, 1978). After establishing rapport, speakers need to prepare the listeners for the body of the speech. It may not be appropriate to say that these devices manifest some characteristics of speaker/writer responsibility in English rhetoric; however, it is 139 true that these are strategies that take into account a listener and his/her need to have his /her attention focused most directly. Relating the topic to the audience in the introduction was being emphasized by K e v i n throughout the course. — Organizational Principles of Presentation The three methods of organization which K e v i n taught during the first six weeks corresponded to three kinds of presentations: informative, problem-solving, and persuasive. The first method of organization introduced when students were working on their informative presentations was a basic one; presentation consists of three parts — an introduction, a body and a conclusion. The body should be composed of several main ideas and details supporting them. Kevin 's outline format (see Figure 4.10) is almost identical wi th that of many textbooks on public speaking (e.g., Barrett, 1987; Sternberg, 1984; White, 1978). Despite the fact that K e v i n later introduced other ways of organizing information, throughout the course he reminded students of the importance of coming up wi th clear main ideas and supporting information as a basis for composing their presentations. Generally speaking, an English expository paragraph begins wi th a topic statement and then develops that statement by a succession of specific illustrations which are directly relevant to the topic. For the problem-solving presentation, K e v i n first explained the relationship between causes, effects, problems and solutions, and suggested that this k ind of presentation be composed of the combination of these four elements. He d id not specify the logical order of these elements. Most guidebooks suggest 140 that the causal relationship in a problem-solving speech can proceed either from the cause to the effect (result), or from the effect to the cause (e.g., see White, 1978). Moreover, when students were working on their problem-solving presentations, Kevin explicitly taught that the first paragraphs of research materials usually contained main ideas and that the first sentence usually contains the main idea for that paragraph. Beginning a paragraph with a topic sentence is accepted by many educators and instructors as one of the characteristics of the English paragraph (Hinds, 1980). Finally, for the persuasive presentations, another method of organization was introduced: getting attention, stating the issue, providing the need, i.e., explaining the importance of the issue, giving supports, and then concluding with a challenge. Since the primary purpose of this type of presentation was to prove one's viewpoints and to persuade the audience to do something, making the issue, the need and the challenge clear was always emphasized by Kevin. White (1978) claims that if you wish to persuade your audience to accept, reject or believe something, the major headings of the body of the speech could present 'reasons for acceptance, rejection or belief.' Although in this case Kevin's model was not always identical with that of guidebooks on public speaking, some of the points he emphasized were also considered important in these guidebooks. The primary difference between the methods of organization was related more to paragraph content than to any strictly structural principle. However, many of the principles Kevin taught in class are also discussed and suggested as recommended structural principles in most guidebooks on public speaking in English. Moreover, some of them can be identified as representatives of English 141 rhetoric. A well-organized speech helps listeners to comprehend, to remember, and to think about or act on the message (Sternberg, 1984). In English verbal culture, the speaker is primarily responsible for making statements clear and well-organized (Clancy, 1986; Hinds, 1987). Again, we can see some characteristics of English rhetoric as a speaker/writer responsible language here. This kind of information would be helpful, especially for Japanese students, whose first language rhetorical style is a listener/reader responsible, a contrast to that of English. — Transitional Devices Transitional devices which Kevin introduced to the class were specific words and phrases for "Adding a point," "Emphasizing a point," "Showing similarity" and so forth (see Figure 4.20). Kevin's emphasis was on using transitional words and varying word choices. Textbooks on public speaking usually argue that transitional devices play a critical role in achieving coherence and guiding the audience (e.g., Barrett, 1984; White, 1978). They also recommend varying word choices. Referring to writing, Kaplan (1966) claims that coherence is favored in English writing rhetoric. Hinds (1987) also argues that English prose is expected to use appropriate transition statements so that the reader can grasp the whole picture of the composition, piecing together the thread of the writer's logic. Although these texts deal with English writing rhetoric, they can be applied to the rhetoric of presentation in English, since presentation is a kind of planned discourse (Ochs, 1983), and is always concerned with its audience, just as writing is. Kevin did not refer to this point in detail; however, most students seemed to 142 understand not only the necessity of varying word choices but also the concept of the importance of the appropriate delivery of transitions for the audience. Providing transitional devices in order to show listeners landmarks along the way is characteristic of English rhetoric. — S e n t e n c e P a t t e r n s The sentence patterns Kevin taught in class were twelve basic ones (see Figure 4.21). Varying sentence patterns was a primary goal here. Although public speaking guidebooks do not usually introduce specific patterns, they do suggest that speakers employ a variety of sentence types in order to secure freshness and interest (e.g., White, 1978). Varying sentence patterns cannot be identified as a feature only of English rhetoric. Presumably, many other languages prefer varying sentence patterns to some extent in their speeches as well. However, it is a safe assumption that most ESL or EFL students have been taught to vary their word choices and sentence structures when they speak or write English. — O p i n i o n s a n d A r g u m e n t s The expressions for giving opinions and making arguments Kevin introduced are the phrases and sentences considered appropriate when giving opinions, asking for opinions, agreeing with an argument and so forth (see Figure 4.23). Kevin's point was that there were certain expressions to be used when proving one's point and convincing people. For instance, Kevin suggested that when disagreeing with another's opinion, students should first express understanding of it, and then disagree with it. Guidebooks on public speaking do 143 not usually discuss this issue; however, this k ind of communicative strategy is clearly important if ESL students wish to state opinions or make arguments clearly i n English. This issue can be recognized as necessary pragmatic information for ESL students. A s I hope this discussion makes clear, some of the language aspects and rhetorical principles that K e v i n taught i n class are exactly parallel to certain principles of rhetoric i n English. They are the features of a speaker/writer responsible language, and strategies that take into account a listener's need most directly. In English, a breakdown i n communication is perceived to be caused by a speaker's inability to produce understandable passages or lack of sufficient effort to get the meaning across (Takano, 1993). It is also true that because of the nature of public speaking and debating activities, the speaker inevitably has to be aware of his /her audience's needs. However, i n some languages, such as Japanese, the listener is usually assumed to have a primary responsibility for effective communication. Since public speaking and debating require the speaker to make clear statements and logical connections between information, it would not be too much to say that working on these activities wou ld enable ESL or EFL students to learn the rhetoric of English. 3. How and to what extent were the Japanese ESL students in the class socialized into such speech activities? The students' achievements have been investigated from the perspective of language socialization. A s I have described i n the previous chapter, the 144 Japanese ESL students i n that particular class learned the language and rhetorical aspects mentioned above mainly through Kevin 's explicit instructions, al though his inexplicit or implicit instruction also occasionally seemed to contribute to their learning. There was considerable evidence that through scaffolded interaction wi th K e v i n as an expert (Cazden, 1988), and through the engagement i n various activities organized by Kev in , the students gradually became able to participate i n public speaking activities which were beyond their competence at the beginning, and extended their skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence (Cazden & Forman, 1985; Donato, 1994). Throughout the course, a recurrent pattern was recognized i n Kevin 's instructional style. It can be identified as follows: modelling, joint negotiation between teacher and students or among students, and students' independent construction of their presentations (Callaghan & Rothery, 1988). Moreover, along wi th these, consistent feedback was provided. This recurrent instructional style was a cyclical process rather than a linear one. Reflecting on this model, I w i l l discuss and summarize the Japanese students' socialization processes and their gains. — Hook (Introduction) Employing a "Hook" and providing an overview of the presentation were emphasized by K e v i n when students were working on their second presentations. 145 FIGURE 5.1 The Process of Learning "Hook" 1. modelling the handout on "Hook" (attention-getter options) (Figure 4.5) 2. joint negotiation The whole class practiced making impressive or shocking statements wi th Masayo's presentation topic. 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to practice applying the "Hook" to the introduction of their presentations. After Kevin 's explicit instruction, including modelling and joint negotiation, the students started applying the "Hook" to their introductions i n order to get the attention of their audiences. A s a result, compared to the introductions of their first speeches, those of their second ones were longer. For example, Atsushi , Yoshimi , and Nor iko d id not really provide introductions i n their first presentations; in their second presentations, however, they provided hooks. Since "Hook" seemed to impact significantly on the students, most of the students consistently employed this idea for the rest of their presentations. K e v i n also constantly gave evaluative comments on this issue i n the students' presentations throughout the course. FIGURE 5.2 The Process of Learning Providing an Overview 1. modell ing the structure of the introduction (Figure 4.6) 2. joint negotiation 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to practice providing an overview i n the introductions of their presentations. Al though K e v i n also suggested providing an overview of the presentation i n their introductions, most of the students d id not do so i n their second presentations. In this case, while K e v i n explained the necessity of the 146 overview, he neither gave a concrete example nor d id he require the whole class to practice doing it together. It can be assumed that only direct explanation was not sufficient to get students to apply it to their presentations. Throughout the course, only Masayo consistently provided an overview; and M a k i started g iv ing one from her third presentation on. The other students, however, never provided them i n their introductions. K e v i n d id not really pay attention to this issue i n his evaluative comments, either. — Organizational Principles of Presentation Three kinds of organization were introduced when students were working on their ind iv idua l presentations: informative, problem-solving and persuasive. FIGURE 5.3 The Process of Learning a Basic Organization 1. modelling main ideas & supporting details, the outline format (Figure 4.10) 2. joint negotiation The whole class practiced brainstorming and narrowing Noriko 's presentation topic 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to practice applying this basic organizational structures at their presentations. The basic organizational structure — main idea plus supporting detail — was introduced at the time students were working on their informative presentations. Besides explicitly teaching students how to come up wi th m a i n ideas and details to support them, and handing out an outline, K e v i n continued throughout to remind students of the importance of this basic organizational principle. Consequently, each student came up wi th main ideas and supporting details, and organized them according to Kevin 's outl ine. 147 F I G U R E 5.4 The Process of Learning Problem-Solving Organization 1. joint negotiation modelling impromptu presentation (occasionally invited other students' opinions, too) (Excerpt 12) thinking through a problem (Figure 4.12), the relationship between causes, effects, problems, and solutions (Figure 4.13) 2. joint negotiation With Masayo's problem topic, the whole class practiced coming up wi th causes, effects, problems and solutions. 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to apply this at their problem-solving presentations. For the problem-solving organization, through Kevin 's explicit instruction including modell ing and joint negotiation wi th h im, students learned how to. deal wi th their problem topics. A l l the students composed their speeches using a combination of causes, effects, problems and solutions. F I G U R E 5.5 The Process of Learning Persuasive Organization 1. modell ing persuasive organization (Figure 4.17) 2. joint negotiation impromptu role plays (Excerpt 15) 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to apply this organizational model to their persuasive presentations. Through Kevin 's explanation of the organizational model and role plays, students learned the method of organization for the persuasive presentation. O n the whole, the students followed Kevin 's organizational model although their ordering of information elements was not always identical wi th his. Throughout the course, K e v i n consistently paid attention to the content and clarity of the arguments presented i n students' presentations. 148 Transitional Devices Transitional Devices were taught i n the third week of the course. FIGURE 5.6 The Process of Learning Transitional Devices 1. modell ing the handout on transitional devices (Figure 4.20) 2. joint negotiation The whole class practiced making sentences by using some transition words i n the list. 3. independent construction Students were made very aware of the importance of transition words. They were given the opportunity to practice using transition words i n their presentations. Through Kevin 's explicit instruction, including modelling and joint negotiation wi th h im, students learned the importance of employing transitional words and varying their word choices. Al though their actual focus tended to be on varying their word choices, as Kevin 's was also, some of them started providing transitional words to introduce the proposition, the first m a i n heading. After Kevin 's instruction, the students' awareness of the importance of transitional devices was raised significantly. Moreover, they started using words they had never used before. Throughout the course, K e v i n constantly gave comments on this issue, not only i n his evaluative comments, but also i n students' impromptus . — Sentence Patterns Sentence Patterns were introduced at the end of the fourth week. 149 FIGURE 5.7 The Process of Learning Sentence Paterns 1. modelling the handout of sentence patterns (Figure 4.22) 2. joint negotiation The whole class practiced making sentences by using a few sentence patterns in the list. 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to practice varying sentence patterns i n their presentations. Despite his explicit instruction, including modell ing and joint negotiation, significant changes in the students' sentence patterns were not discernible, and their awareness of them was not really raised, either. The reason can be assumed to be that K e v i n referred to this issue only once i n class, and never discussed it after that. Furthermore, he discussed only the first five patterns i n class. — Opinions and Arguments Appropriate expressions for giving opinions and making arguments were introduced i n the fifth week. FIGURE 5.8 The Process of Learning Expressions for Opinions and Arguments 1. modell ing the handout of 'Opinions and Arguments' (Figure 4.24) 2. joint negotiation impromptu role plays (Excerpt 23) 3. independent construction Students were given the opportunity to practice using expressions from the list i n their question periods. (2nd persuasive presentation) Through Kevin 's modell ing and joint negotiation wi th h im, students learned that there were certain expressions to be used when giving opinions and arguments. A l though the expressions the students actually employed from the list K e v i n handed out d id not vary greatly, most of the students used some i n 150 their question periods. Moreover, some of them further uti l ized the strategy K e v i n had explicitly suggested: first, express understanding of another's op in ion , and then disagree wi th them. After this, K e v i n d id not directly mention this issue; however, he sometimes referred to the clarity of the students' opinions or arguments. Finally, inexplicit or implicit instruction also occasionally appeared to contribute the students' learning. For instance, when students were working o n their problem-solving presentations, K e v i n pointed out that the first paragraphs of research materials usually contained their main ideas and that the first sentence usually contained the main idea for that paragraph, wi th the aim of improving students' reading and note taking skills. Interestingly, although he d id not suggest it explicitly, most of the students, except Atsushi , started doing it in their presentations. They began their "paragraphs" by providing topic sentences. Through Kevin 's explicit instruction, including modelling and joint negotiation between h im and students or among the students themselves, or sometimes through his inexplicit or implicit direction, the students gradually acquired the language and rhetorical aspects K e v i n taught i n class. O n the whole, whenever K e v i n showed a model or provided explicit explanation and later provided students wi th opportunities to practice, the students seemed to understand the issue very wel l and actually applied it to their presentations. Moreover, Kevin ' s consistent feedback or reminder i n his evaluative comments also helped the students' learning a lot. It appeared to be very helpful i n raising the students' awareness. A l l these processes, such as modelling, joint negotiation 151 (Callaghan & Rothery, 1988), and constant feedback, seemed to be essential i n facilitating the Japanese students' learning. In fact, when K e v i n skipped one or more of these processes, many students d id not seem to adopt the technique. For instance, despite Kevin 's explicit instruction, including modelling and joint negotiation, no significant change was seen in the students' sentence patterns. The reason can be assumed to be that K e v i n d id not constantly remind students of that issue. Finally, students themselves also appeared to contribute to each others' learning. Listening to or watching other classmates' impromptus or presentations seemed to be very helpful. 4. What were the students' and the instructor's perception of their gains? And what were the students' impressions of the course on the whole? Individual interviews wi th K e v i n and wi th each student were conducted twice during the three month course. I administered the first interview one month into the session, and the second one at the end. In the previous chapter, I have from time to time referred to the students' perceptions of their own gains, corresponding to each language aspect or rhetorical principle. Here I w i l l summarize these perceptions as wel l as those of Kev in , and w i l l further discuss the value of the course, referring only to the students' perception of the class. Figure 5.9 presents the responses K e v i n and the Japanese students i n the class made to the following questions: "What do you think you learned throughout the course?" and "In what way do you think has your Engl ish improved i n this course?" (to students), and " H o w do you think students' English has changed?" (to Kevin) . Most of the students answered that they had 152 learned how to speak i n an orderly fashion. They particularly mentioned the transitional words and organizational skills. M a k i , Nor iko and Yasuko further talked about the differences i n the organizational principles between English and Japanese. Similar to my own observation, discussed under the second question, the Japanese students themselves also seemed to recognize that working o n public speaking and debating skills would enable them to learn some features of the rhetoric i n their target language, which are quite different from those i n Japanese. K e v i n talked about his perception of the students' gains from a rather broader perspective, i n terms of their fluency, which was one of the major goals of the course. Al though he d id not really refer to each individual 's achievement i n detail, he said that he found significant changes, especially i n Masayo's and Noriko 's English, and i n their attitude. Developing students' self-esteem and confidence was also one of the goals. FIGURE 5.9 Students' and Instructor's Perception of Their Gains Kevin I "Oh, I think a huge improvement. The main focus of the course, of course, is the fluency. And building self-confidence and so on. I feel that they are much more fluent now and all except probably one or two students are much more fluent.... But, like, I had two students, both young Japanese women who at the beginning of the course said, "I think it's too difficult for me, I really can't do this." And we discussed it, and so I said, 'Try it and see what you think." And one of them in fact is going to do the farewell presentation. And the other one is just changed totally. Thaf s Masayo. And like, her personality is different, so much more outgoing and confident about herself. So I see a huge improvement in every body in their self-confidence." 153 Atsushi "Obviously, I learned methods of speaking English. Especially transition words. I think they are more important in speaking than in writing. ... If it were not for transition words, listeners would have difficulty to knowing what the speaker really meant to say." "Kevin taught us that there are various ways of starting sentences, not only with a subject. For instance, beginning with an adverb or a prepositional phrase. That information was very useful." (translated from Japanese) Maki "First of all, attitude. ... And speaking techniques. For example, posture when we speak. Being videotaped was very helpful. ... Also transition words. I learned that providing transition words makes a conversation or a speech alive. Moreover, I think I learned how to organize information and how to say what I really want to say. ... I had never learned these before, even in Japanese. ... When I took the academic writing course before, I also learned similar kinds of organization. That was also helpful. ... Writing in English requires straightforwardness, while Japanese may require vagueness. Especially in writing, Japanese people tend to appreciate vagueness as creative or original." (translated from Japanese) Masayo "I think I learned how to express my opinions on an issue. Before, even when I had some opinion, I didn't know how to express it.... Also I think I improved my listening skills. We had a lot of opportunities for discussion. And whenever we had a discussion, I felt it was very important to listen actively to others' opinions. Otherwise, I couldn't respond. And also my speaking became more spontaneous." (translated from Japanese) Noriko "1 like that I learned ordering way of thinking or organizing information. ... I feel that they are different from Japanese. For example, in English, the major points usually come first, while in Japanese they don't necessarily do so. ... Moreover, my speaking used to be rather intermittent. But I learned about transition words in this class." (translated from Japanese) Yasuko "Well, first of all, I learned transitions words even though Kevin said that he didn't intend to teach us grammar.... And I also learned how to relax. If you do things with confidence, you can do whatever you want to.... Yes, I learned the organizations which I felt were similar to those of academic writing. For example, putting main ideas first, and giving examples, and so on. I had never learned them before, even in Japanese. ... For example, Ki ~ Shoo - Ten - Ketsu in Japanese? To tell you the truth, I don't know it very well. I don't know Japanese Ki — Shoo - Ten - Ketsu... my writing teacher said that the organizational principles of English are different from those of Japanese. Maybe they are different." (translated from Japanese) Yoshimi "I learned how to speak logically. I learned a lot of difficult words not only by doing research on my topics but also by listening to other classmates' speeches, (translated from Japanese) Figure 5.10 shows Japanese students' impressions of the course on the whole. Questions they answered were "How did you feel about this course?" and "What were differences between this course and other courses at BCI? (good or bad points)" Most of the students showed their satisfaction with the course, especially mentioning Kevin's explicit teaching style. Kevin's direct instruction helped the students develop their speaking skills significantly. The students 154 appreciated the constant feedback and the well-organized class syllabus, w h i c h were both provided by Kev in . Most of them also said that they had much more opportunity to speak i n this class than i n any other classes. Moreover, his consistent encouragement of them to take initiatives i n their learning seemed to contribute to gains i n their self-esteem and confidence. Most students also answered that they became more confident in speaking English i n front of a group of people and i n their studying. Finally, they pointed out that their classmates' advanced English levels had also greatly affected their learning. They could learn not only from K e v i n but also from each other. FIGURE 5.10 Students' Perception of the Course Atsushi "It was very interesting. We had a lot of opportunities to discuss various issues. ... And most of my classmates who were taking this course had positive attitudes toward their studying." 'Throughout the course, I was always able to understand what Kevin was trying for. Debating techniques, how to express one's opinion in a debate, fluency, how to persuade people, effective communication etc. His goals were always clear. In other classes, I sometimes don't know what teachers are doing." (translated from Japanese) Maki 'This class was the best among the classes which I have taken. I liked discussing psychological issues which Kevin brought to the class. And he never let us discuss 'abortion.' That was good. I don't like talking about it. ... Watching other classmates' presentations was very helpful." "I like Kevin's way of teaching very much. He gave us a lot of advice, and always led us to take initiative. I didn't have any chance to nod. I always needed concentration to keep up with the class." (translated from Japanese) Masayo "I found a lot of good points in this class. I think we could develop not only our speaking skills but also thinking skills. Also the English levels of my classmates were very advanced. So I could learn from them, too.... And Kevin always tried to elicit our opinions instead of stating his own. I liked that very much." (translated from Japanese) Noriko "I think this class was very good. I gained confidence by studying in this class." 'This class required us to work hard. I felt I was studying very hard. In other classes, I could be lazy. Maybe Kevin is good at time-management." (translated from Japanese) 155 Yasuko "1 like this class. One of the reasons I like this class is Kevin. I think he is a good leader. Some teachers don't mind if students get lazy, but Kevin has never let that happen. Although I don't want to do the presentation at the farewell reception at the end of the session, I do want to make a speech in the near future at somebody's wedding ceremony or something. I have done it several times before, but I was always nervous. I have a little more confidence now.... I think students can gain confidence by attending this class. I'm sure you can gain confidence if you work hard. But even if you don't work hard, still. This class may be good for you if you want to be confident. But you may not feel you are learning English" "First of all, Kevin. He is different from the other teachers. In other classes, like the academic preparation courses, you always get homework. But in this class, whether or not you study hard depend totally on you. You have to go to the library voluntarily. If you want to be lazy, you can be like that. But if you work hard, you can learn something. That is different." (translated from Japanese) Yoshimi "I'm quite satisfied with this course. Everybody in the class was an active speaker, so I also had to be like them. In this class, we didn't really have materials (textbooks). I felt we created our own materials. Because of that we could choose our levels and what we would learn. If we had been given materials only by Kevin, we would have had to accommodate ourselves to the levels of those materials. Depending on everybody's motivation or enthusiasm, our levels can be changed. In this class, I was never passive." (translated from Japanese) Judging from their perception of their gains and the course as a whole, it is apparent that this class enabled the Japanese students not only to develop their public speaking skills i n English but also to gain self-confidence. A s wel l as technical skills, confidence is one of the most important factors i n language learning. A s most of the students themselves mentioned, throughout the course they learned methods of speaking i n a logical fashion i n English. Like the students observed i n this study, once ESL students reach upper-intermediate or advanced levels, they need, not only grammar knowledge, but also techniques for speaking appropriately and conveying messages precisely. The goal of the class was not to improve the sentence-level accuracy of the students. Rather, it was more to help them develop more effective communicat ion skills and fluency. In that sense, this type of class would be very helpful for upper-intermediate or advanced ESL students to acquire more advanced skills in their target language. 156 5. Were there any cultural constraints implicit in students' individual presentations? A s I mentioned much earlier, the present study d id not aim to determine whether or not the language aspects or rhetorical features of the speaker's first language are transferred to his /her L2 text. Rather, its focus was the processes by which the Japanese ESL students were socialized into public speaking rhetoric i n their target language wi th Kevin ' s assistance. However, it is also true that even under his direct teaching, some cultural constraints from their first language were occasionally seen i n the Japanese students' speeches. I w i l l briefly discuss this issue, referring to some examples from the students' presentations. In Noriko 's first presentation (Excerpt 8), for instance, at the very end, she suddenly raised a new topic, 'myth, ' and concluded her speech by saying that she wanted to explore it from then on. Guidebooks on public speaking usually suggest that the speaker conclude his/her speech by summarizing the m a i n points and restating the central theme (e.g., Barrett, 1987). However, N o r i k o raised another topic which she had never mentioned before. This can be assumed to be "ten," which is considered one of the developmental phases of Japanese paragraphing. " A t the point where this development (discussion of the major theme) is finished, turn the idea to a sub theme where there is a connection but not a directly connected association" (Hinds, 1983, p. 132). Moreover, i n Japanese the conclusion does not need to be decisive, and ending a paragraph wi th an expression of doubt or a question is permitted (Hinds, 1983). 157 In the case of Atsushi, he never provided a topic sentence at the beginning of each "paragraph," although most students started providing them after K e v i n taught it wi th the aim of improving their reading skills. This can also be assumed to be caused by the influence of Japanese rhetoric. "It is not always the case that a Japanese paragraph begins wi th a topic sentence" (Hinds, 1980, p. 150). This was also sometimes seen i n the other Japanese students' presentations, especially at the beginning of the session. Thus, while most Japanese students i n the class gradually learned public speaking rhetoric in English and applied it to their presentations, from time to time possible influence from their first language was recognized, although it was not clear whether this was done consciously or unconsciously. K e v i n d id not really point out this issue as long as their arguments were clear. Pedagogical Implications This study has revealed the kinds of language or rhetorical features introduced i n an actual ESL classroom which focused on the development of students' public speaking and debating skills i n English, and also how Japanese students i n that class acquired these skills. Al though generalization is not the intention of this study because of the nature of the study and its scale, some pedagogical implications can be drawn. First, since the study has suggested that some of the language aspects and rhetorical principles that K e v i n taught were parallel to certain principles of rhetoric i n English, working on public speaking activities would enable ESL or 158 E F L students to learn some of the rhetorical features of English. These features are pervasive standards among public speakers and debaters i n the Engl i sh speaking environment. This k ind of information would be helpful, especially for students l ike the Japanese, whose language system is quite different from that of English. Moreover, if the instructor is familiar wi th his/her students' first languages, it would be more helpful because he/she can provide the explicit explanation of the differences or similarities in language and rhetorical aspects between English and the students' first languages. Second, the activities i n a public speaking and debating class seem to be very helpful for upper-intermediate or advanced level ESL or EFL students to learn how to talk appropriately and convey their message precisely i n their target language, especially i n the context of public speaking. The public speaking and debating class investigated here was leveled as advanced. Accuracy of grammar and pronunciation was not paid much attention to, unless it was absolutely necessary to clarify meaning. Once students reach upper-intermediate or advanced level, they need not only grammar knowledge but also methods of effective communication. In this sense, public speaking and debating skills appear to be very helpful for those ESL or EFL students to develop this dimension of language use. Thirdly, explicit instruction including modell ing and joint negotiation between the instructor and students or among students could greatly help ESL or EFL students' learning, and could successfully lead to their independent performances. A s the study has revealed, Kevin ' s explicit instruction enabled Japanese students to be socialized into one recurrent speech event, ' i n d i v i d u a l 159 oral presentation' i n their target language. Moreover, consistent feedback from K e v i n to students was a crucial factor i n facilitating their learning. In the case of the Japanese students i n this study, most of them expressed their appreciation of Kevin 's teaching style. The results may not have been the same if these students had not been Japanese. However, this information would have significant implicat ion especially for teachers who have many Japanese students i n their classes. Fourthly, spontaneity and fluency could be developed by working o n public speaking and debating activities. Al though the study d id not investigate this issue i n detail, I d id recognize the changes in the students' spontaneity and fluency during three months, and i n fact both the instructor and some of the students also recognized a significant improvement i n their fluency. Since memorizing texts was not the goal and making mistakes was not a major concern, students had many opportunities to develop their spontaneity and fluency. Finally, becoming accustomed to speaking in front of groups of people enables ESL students to develop their self-esteem and confidence. Most Japanese students observed i n this study answered that they gained confidence by making lots of speeches and participating i n various activities employed in class. Confidence, as is evident to all teachers, is one of the most important factors i n language learning. 160 Implications for Future Research The present study attempted to fi l l a gap i n the research on particular activities, "public speaking and debating," i n the ESL classroom. However, there were some limitations, mostly because of the methods of the study. There are some recommendations for future research. First, a similar investigation needs to be conducted, employing cross-cultural participants. This study focused only on Japanese students i n the class. Therefore, the results cannot always be extended to students of other ethnic backgrounds. The following question may serve to guide future research: "Are there any differences i n learning between students of different ethnic backgrounds?" Secondly, a similar investigation needs to be conducted, observing multiple classes. Since this study observed only one class, the findings may not be able to be generalized to other situations. The following questions may serve to guide future research: "Do the instructor's character and teaching style affect students' learning?", "Do the students' English levels affect their learning?", "Does the balance of ethnic diversity i n the class affect students' learning?" and "Does the balance of gender diversity i n class affect students' learning?" Finally, a similar investigation needs to be conducted, employing mul t ip le observers. Since this study employed only one observer, it might affect the results. The following question may serve to guide future research: "Can independent observers discover the same phenomena?" 161 Even though the study described the distinct characteristics of the particular participants and contextual features of this class i n detail, these descriptions cannot always be extended to other studies. Reflecting on the recommendations above, future studies could expand the focuses of the present study. 162 R E F E R E N C E S Barrett, H . (1987). Practical use of speech communication. N e w York, N Y : Holt , Rinehart and Winston. Bloome, D. , & Bailey, F. (1992). Studying language and literacy through events, particularity, and intertexuality. In R. Beach, J. Green, M . Kami l , & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 181-210). Urbana, IL: National Counci l of Teachers of English. Brown, G., & Yule, G . (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burgess, R. G . (1984). In the field: A n introduction to field research. London: George Al l en Sz U n w i n . Callaghan, M . , Sz Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre-based approach (The Report of the DSP Literacy Project). Metropolitan East Region. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of learning and teaching. Portsmouth, N H : Heinemann. Chaudron, C , & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Appl ied Linguistics, 7(2), 113-127. Clancy, P. M . (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across culture (pp. 213-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M . (1987). Cultural differences i n the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211-247. Connor, U . (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conway, W. D . (1976). Debate in the TESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 10(3), 305-308. Cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. (1982). Communicative competence in educational perspectives. In L . Wilkinson (Ed.), Community in the classroom (pp. 13-24). N e w York, N Y : Academic Press. Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A . (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of S L A task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. A p p e l (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 163 Crago, M. B. (1992). Ethnography and language socialization. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(3), 28-39. Crago, M . B., Annahatak, B., & Ningiuruvik, L. (1993). Changing patterns of language socialization in Inuit homes. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(3), 205-223. Crookes, R. (1986). Task classification: A cross-disciplinary review (University of Hawaii at Manoa: Center for Second Language Classroom Research). Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 427-453. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Doughty, C , & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325. Dolye, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129-149. Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 505-537. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In James (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forman-Takano, D. (1992, March). A rationale for using debate techniques in the EFL composition classroom. The Literary Association, Doshisha University, 56, 343-357. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York, NY: Academic Press. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: contrastive rhetoric. In D. M . Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263-283). New York, NY: Longman. Hammersley, M. , & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography principles in practice. New York, NY: Routledge. 164 Heath, S. B. (1982). Ethnography i n education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gilmore, & A . A . Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 33-55). Washington, D C : Center for Appl ied Linguistics. Heath, S. B. (1993). Inner city life through drama: Imagining the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 177-192. Hinds, J. (1980). Japanese expository prose. Papers in Linguistics: International Tournal of H u m a n Communication, 13(1), 117-158. Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text, 3(2), 183-195. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U . Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writ ing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley. Hornberger, N . H . (1994). Ethnography. In A . Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives i n TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 688-690. Horowitz , D . M . (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462. Hymes, D . (1982). What is ethnography? In P. Gilmore, & A . A . Glatthorn (Eds.), Chi ldren in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 21-32). Washington, D C : Center for App l i ed Linguistics. Johnson, D . M . (1992). Approaches to research i n second language learning. White Plains, N Y : Longman. Johnson, D . M . , & Saville-Troike, M . (1992). Validi ty and reliability in qualitative research on second language acquisition and teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 602-605. Johnson, J. R., & Szczupakiewicz, N . (1987). The public speaking course: Is it preparing students wi th work related public speaking skills? Communica t ion Education, 36,131-137. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16,1-20. Kinneary, J. L. , & Kline Jr., C. R. (1976). Composition and related fields. In G. Tate (Ed.), Teaching composition: 10 bibliographical essays (pp. 241-273). Fort Worth, T X : Christian University Press. 165 Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues i n bil ingual education (pp. 168-180). Washington, D C : Georgetown University Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S. (1987). Applications of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. In J. C. Richards, & M . H . Long (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 33-44). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel , G . (1994). Theoretical framework: A n introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appe l (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1-31). Norwood, NJ : Ablex. Leki , I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143. - Leong, H . (1980). The debate: A means of eliciting semi-spontaneous communication i n the TEFL classroom. English Language Teaching Tournal, 34(4), 287-289. Leont'ev, A . N . (1979). The problem of activity i n psychology. In J. V . Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). N e w York, N Y : M . E. Sharpe. Long, M . H . (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H . Wini tz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). Annuals of the N e w York Academy of Science, 379. Long, M . H . , & Porter, P. A . (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-227. Loschky, L . (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisit ion, 16(3), 303-323. Loy, K . H . (1988). Culture in the language class: A Japanese view. Tournal of Intensive English Studies, 53-68. Mauranen, A . (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext i n Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22. Mohan , B. A . , & Lo , W. A . (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534. 166 Mohan, B. A . , & Smith, S. M . (1992). Context and cooperation in academic tasks. In D . Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 81-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D . (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1983). Planned and unplanned discourse. In E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Acquir ing conversational competence (pp. 129-157). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across culture (pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1987). Input: A socio-cultural perspective. In M . Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 305-319). N e w York, N Y : Academic Press. Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1983). Acqui r ing conversational competence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. O'Keef, B. J. (1981). Writing, speaking, and the production of discourse. In B. M . Kro l l , & R. J. Vann (Eds.), Exploring speaking-writing relationships connections and contrasts (pp. 134-141). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Peters, A . M . , & Boggs, S. T. (1986). Interactional routines as cultural influences upon language acquisition. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across culture (pp. 80-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, negotiation, and comprehension: Redefining relationship. System, 19(4), 437-452. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G . Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning: Integrating theory & practice (pp. 9-34). Bristol, P A : Mult i l ingual Matters. Poole, D . (1990). Discourse analysis in ethnographic research. A n n u a l Review of App l i ed Linguistics, 11,42-56. 167 Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning, 42(4), 593-616. Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussion. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200-222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Richards, J. C , Piatt, J., & Piatt, H . (1992). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (2nd ed.). Essex, England: Longman. Sauers, F. W. (1987, Winter). Menage a trois: Reading, writing and rhetoric. College Teaching, 35(1), 23-25. Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Baltimore: University Park Press. Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schumacher, S., & McMillan, J. H . (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. New York, NY: Harper Collins College. Shibatani, M . (1991). The language of Tapan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sternberg, P. (1984). Speak up! A guide to public speaking. New York, NY: Julian Messner, A Division of Simon & Schuster. Stokes, P. M . (1976). Debating in the ESL classroom. English Language Teaching Tournal, 31(1), 15-17. Swain, M . (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Takano, S. (1993). The transfer of L l rhetoric in L2 texts and its implications for second language teaching. Tournal of Intensive English Studies, 2,43-83. Tannen, D. (1982). Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 168 Van Her, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New York, NY: Longman Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. J. Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman Trans. & Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1986). Calling-out and repeating routines in Kwara'ae children's language socialization. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across culture (pp. 17-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 575-592. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1992). Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of child socialization: A longitudinal study of the problem of schooling for Kwara'ae (Solomon Islands) children. New Directions for Child Development, 58,51-66. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: An introduction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed. and Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 3-35). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. White, E. E. (1978). Practical public speaking (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Willet, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 473-503. Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 245-265. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Wolcott, H . F. (1985). On ethnographic intent. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(3), 187-203. Wolcott, H . F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M . Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 187-215). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association. Wolcott, H . F. (1988). Adequate schools and inadequate education: The life history of a sneaky kid. In R. M . Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for 1 6 9 research i n education (pp. 221-249). Washington, D C : American Education Research Association. Wolcott, H . F. (1988). Introduction: A case study using an ethnographic approach. In R. M . Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research i n education (pp. 217-220). Washington, D C : American Education Research Association. Yoshikawa, M . (1978). Some Japanese and American culture characteristics. In M . H . Prosser (Ed.), The cultural dialogue: A n introduction to intercultural communication (pp. 220-230). Boston, M A : Houghton Miff l in . Zamel, V . (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101. 170 APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Your name: 2. Gender: male female 3. Your age (optional): 4. Where do you come from? country ( city ( 5. Are you an immigrant? If not, when do country? 6. What is your first language? 7. H o w long have you been in Canada? 8. What language do you most frequently use at home? (at your home stay or your apartment) 9. H o w long have you studied English as a foreign language in your home country? ( ) years ( ) months 10. H o w long have you studied Engl ish as a second language i n Canada? ( ) years ( ) months 11. Have you studied any other foreign languages besides English? If any, please specify what language and how long have you studied it. 12. Have you ever l ived or studied abroad before you came to Canada? Country Length of stay Purpose you expect to return to your home 171 13. W h y d id you come to Vancouver to study English? 14. H o w long have you studied i n this language institute? (BCI) 15. What other courses have you studied i n this language institute? Please list the names of the courses you have taken. 16. W h y are you taking this particular class (public speaking & debating)? 16-a. Do you expect to engage i n public speaking and debating in the future? If so, where? 17. Have you ever done presentations, debates, or panel discussions i n your home country i n either your mother tongue or English? 18. Are presentations, debates and panel discussions often conducted at school i n your home country? 19. What is your goal regarding learning English? (e.g., to improve your Engl ish communication skills, to enter college or university i n Canada, or to experience l iv ing i n Canada) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078096/manifest

Comment

Related Items