Non Frontal Teaching Methodology

8/2/2019 Non Frontal Teaching Methodology

1/6

Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology 89operate, using a great deal of language in the process, to achieve somedesired end, like surviving a shipwreck, setting up the front page of anewspaper, or constructing a local radio news broadc ast.

I have suggested in this article that all-embracing individualisationprogrammes are unable to achieve what they set out to do because it isnot po ssible to pre-personalise m aterials other th an at a relatively sup er-ficial level and because there tends to be a lack of any creative link bet-ween the teacher and the learners when the teacher's role is reduced toadm inistering the complexities of the sy stem.I have presented for your consideration the idea that the teacher whoconstructs a learning programme for a particular group of learnerswhich is filled with m aterials and activities th at stimu late deep p ersonalreactions and w ho m akes it possible for each individual to express thesepersonal reactions will in fact achieve something closer to true indivi-dualisation.

Non-Frontal TeachingMethodology and the Effects ofGroup Cooperation and StudentResponsibility in the EFLClassroomSUZANNE SALIMBENE

HAVE YOU EVER felt superfluous in your EFL classroom? How oftenhave you given your students a group project which involved them socompletely that they forgot your presence? The new task and group-oriented materials currently being published for EFL may make theteacher feel redundant because they are organized around studentactivities rather than being based on teacher presentation, making theteacher the observer instead of the prime mover of the classroom. Thischange in function may stimulate a re-evaluation of accepted philo-sophies of teaching and learning. What are the dynamics of peer inter-action during group or pair projects? Are the students communicatingin English? These group-centered activities may have freed students tolearn instead of forcing them to be taught. A lesson based on studentcooperation and responsibility rather than on teacher presentation isone in which teaching has been subordinated to learning.


2/6

90 Suzanne SalimbeneAll of us have experimented with group and pairwork to somedegree. For most of us, however, these have been merely expedientways of letting students practice w hat we have taug ht. Cou ld these tech-

niques function as the major teaching strategy in the language class-room? How would increased student responsibility affect the language-learning process? I decided to consciously take a 'back seat' in mylanguage classroom and to experiment with strategies which wouldbuild student self-esteem and interaction, making my studentsresponsible for their own learning through groupwork and pairwork. Ihave been trying to develop their feeling of being part of a group,discouraging competition and rivalry, and encouraging a feeling ofgroup support and cooperation. I have wanted to give my students thepleasure and satisfaction of discovering that they can teach themselvesand each other. This is a personal account of my attempt to alter bothmy students' and my own concept of the teacher as 'one who teaches'and the student as 'one who is taught'. It describes methods of develop-ing student self-reliance and self-esteem through group interaction andgroup cooperation.Reorganisation of classroom spaceThe physical arrangement of the classroom sets the stage for theteacher-dominated lesson by dividing the room into 'teacher space' and'studen t spac e'. Traditionally, the space between the studen ts' desks andthe chalkbo ard is the teacher's do m ain. The teache r's desk can either beused as a shield to separate and protect the 'ruler' from the 'masses', orcan be used as a platform upon which he sits, further elevating himabove his pupils. The students also use their desks as protection andrarely leave them to cross the no- m an's land to the teacher's desk.

When the enrollment of the newly formed intensive program I wasdirecting and teaching was smaller than expected, I had all the extraarm-desks removed, placing the remaining arm-desks in a circle. As aresult, the teacher became a member of the student circle instead of 'allpowerful leader'. The circular desk arra ngem ent aided in breaking downthe barrier between teacher and student by creating a 'shared space'. Italso redirected communication from student to teacher to student tostudent because classmates faced one another rather than the teacher,making peer communication easier and more natural. Groupwork wasalso easier because there was space in the classroom for several circlesof various sizes to be formed. Students and desks become mobileinstead of static.Developm ent of group responsibilityNormally, the teacher is relied upon as THE AUTHORITY fromwhom all 'knowledge' springs. Therefore students rarely listen to oneanother and pay attention only when the teacher is 'teaching' or giving'the answer'. I wanted to help them rely on one another to find AN


3/6

Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology 91ANSWER, and to develop their own 'inner criteria' for correct English.One of my strategies was to have students correct their homework inpairs or in groups of up to five members. The pair or group had to agreeupon each answer before going on to the next question. If any studentdisagreed with another's answer, they had to reason it out with eachother . In this way, THE AUTHORITY became THE GROUP. Ifgroup consensus couldn't be reached, the teacher attempted to guiderather than inform by asking the group a question which would leadthem to the correct solution. At the beginning of the semester theteacher was called upon constantly, often only to confirm the group'sdecision. Soon, the students began to gain confidence in their own 'innercriteria' and consequently began to call on the teacher less and lessoften. They began to like to work together, to argue about the correct-ness of a sentence or the solution to a problem. English became morethan an artificial classroom languageit became a vehicle by whichthey could express their thoughts and opinions.

Oral practice and drilling were also transferred from a teacher-direc-ted to a peer-centered activity. The use of flashcards had been demon-strated by the teacher at the beginning of the semester. Soon this prac-tice was turned over to the group. Students would take turns inmanipulating the cards and calling on group members to form senten-ces with the cues. Since the group was responsible for correcting mis-takes, the students began to rely upon themselves and each other. Thism ade them feel 'in ch arg e' of their learning.

A special sense of responsibility, conce rn, and coop eration developedbecause students worked together for a common goal and not incompetition with one another for teacher praise. This feeling was nur-tured through group assignments, tasks, and projects. The class wasdivided into groups of up to six members. Each group would be respon-sible for producing one written assignment, written by a 'secretary' andsigned by all members of the group. A discussion about what to writeand how to write it made each assignment oral as well as written. Whenstuden ts w ere first introduced to this type of join t project they searchedfor short cuts by trying to divide the work so that each member couldwork independently on one part of the assignment. However, theybegan to realize that group decisions were better than individual onesand that the feedback and help they received from one another madethe w ork go faster and resulted in a better finished produ ct. Soon every-one, even the weaker students, felt that they had something to con-tribute. Sometimes groups exchanged and corrected each other'spapers, examining them for content as well as grammatical correct-ness. One instructor even asked the groups to 'grade' each other'spapers and give a rationale for the grade. The insight gained in gradinganother group's work facilitated 'self-evaluation'. Self and peer correc-tion helped develop that inner criterion or sense of correctness soim portan t in language m astery . Students w ere often given a few minutes


4/6

92 Suzanne Salimbeneto re-examine compositions written at home and to exchange paperswith their neighbor for peer correction. Time would then be allowed fordiscussion not only of grammatical correctness but of clarity andorganization as well. The instructor would then comment on both theoriginal and the 'corrected' versions and the pair would go over thesewhen the papers were returned. Sometimes the process was reversed.The instructor would collect the papers and circle errors. Then pairswould discuss and correct their work together.

Writing assignments in the form of letters were also done, either inclass or at home, and 'delivered' to another student. Before answeringthe letter he received, the student would 'correct' it. Although thesubject-matter was given, neither the formation of questions andrequests nor their replies were controlled. They represented realcommunication because an 'information gap' had been created whereneither the exact form of the question nor the answer was predictable.The receiver of the letter had to understand what he or she was beingtold or asked and had to respond with an appropriate reply. Letterswere a form of'role play' requiring use of varieties of written English.

Role-play activities were an important part of oral work, especially inthe part of the program devoted to social functions of English. Becausegroup cooperation, group encouragement, and group support were theessence of all classwork, students were not afraid of 'performing' infront of groups or in front of the class. English became a languagethrough which they could a ct out a situation, discuss a topic, tell a jok e,and communicate their feelings. They soon could address the provost,guest lecturers, and their peers with confidence, and could role-playwith their teacher and with each otherreversing the traditionalteacher-student role and making the teacher 'the directed' rather than'the director'.The teacher's role in the student-centered classroomW hat, then, is the teac her's real role in the student-centered classroom ?How is knowledge passed from teacher to student? Is it not the role ofthe teacher to provide the opportunity and guidance for the learningexperience? Caleb Gattegno offers two very different views of educa-tion in his book What We Owe Children. He describes the traditionalview as one in which

. . . knowledge is conceived as pre-existing and coming down through the teach er,from those gifted people who take knowledge down from the shelves where it isdisplayed and hand it out to students, who presumably need only memory in orderto receive it.1He offers an illustration which shows knowledge being transferred fromthe head of the teacher to the heads of his pupils; the gift bestowed bythe teacher to his pupils either through lecture, demonstration orespecially in the case of language classesthrough repetition andC. Gattegno, What We Owe Children. New York: Educational Solutions, 1970.p. 18.


5/6

Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology 93manipulation which commits to memory. Gattegno suggests that'learning should come through functioning: we unify our experiencesand build on and integrate what already exists . . .'2 He points out thatthe language student brings much with him to the language class. Hehas already mastered one language (his own) and therefore brings withhim the ability to generalise and classify information, thereby producingutterances in the new language which are unique. Gattegno implies thatit is the teacher's role to develop this ability. In the student-centeredclassroom the teacher must relinquish his place as the 'giver of know-ledge' and become more like a facilitator or helper or, to continueGattegno's metaphor, a source of reference. In his teacher's guide toFunctional English, R. V. White says that 'there is a good case for theteacher trying to avoid intervening as much as possible and insteadletting the students get on with the work in their own time. 3 He toodefines the teacher's role as 'one of classroom manager, helper, andadvisor'.

However, it is not easy to relinquish one's place at the front of theclass and destroy that comfortable feeling of power which comesthrough total control. The frontal teacher in the language classroom isboth a 'star' with a captive audience and an 'orchestra leader' conduct-ing a sym pho ny. The frontal teacher acts out and models the patterns tobe practiced and then carefully orchestrates the drills. The studentspeaks on cue. Control is the keycontrol of material and control ofstudent error. The well prepared language teacher knows what is goingto happen in the classroom from minute to minute. By organizing oralprac tice into groups or pairs , the instru ctor must relinquish this firmcontrol. Students are given guidelines to begin their practice, but then,as in any instance of 'real communication', the results take anunpredictable course. The instructor can move from group to grouplistening and correcting, but many mistakes go uncorrected because theinstructor cannot listen to every group at once. In addition, the instruc-tor's presence hinders rather than helps the learning process because,when he or she is not there, the students rely upon one another forcorrection, help, and guidance; the moment the instructor is near, allheads turn back to tradit ional AUTHORITY for THE ANSWER.

The frontal teacher is busy every moment and therefore knows he orshe is working. The long detailed lesson plans, the drills, the explana-tions indicate expertise as a teacher. The exhaustion at the end of thelesson says: I've earned my salary. But has it told the whole truth? Isteacher exertion any indication of student learning?

When I first began organising the major part of my lessons around.group and pair activities, I raced from group to group trying to makesure everything said was correct and helping all the groups equally.When I realized my presence inhibited learning, I tried to take that2Ibid.3R. W hite, Functional English: 1. Con solidation, Teacher's Book, N elson, 1979, p. 7.


6/6

94 Suzanne Salimbene'back seat' and to avoid approaching a group unless I was asked forhelp. At the beginning I felt useless and redundant. In addition, I feltlike an outsider and that is a lonely feeling. My students were involved.They were learning, and they didn't need me to 'teach' them. However,because I was not too busy 'teaching' and could really observe my stu-dents, I was able to take stock of what was happening in the class-room. Here were sixteen college-age students who had never before hadany responsibility in their learning process. They were totally involvedfor the entire two-hour lesson. A weak student was conducting apronunciation drill. Another group was taking turns constructingsentences with phrasal verb flashcards, and the third group was usingrole-play to practice conversation techniques. There was laughter,noise, and seeming confusion, but the students were learning and theywere using English to communicate. Most of all, they were making useof their reasoning power, intelligence, and imagination in the learningprocess. I had set the tasks and the ground rules, but they were giventhe freedom to invent their own strategies. They were responsible fortheir own learning, which increased their feeling of self-esteem. They feltpa rt of a gro up , learning from one a noth er, responsible for one ano ther.

I began to see myself not as a leader but as an impresario giving newtalent the opportunity to be born. This, then, I saw as the role of theteacher in the student-centered classroom. The teacher chooses anddirects the music, but the resulting dance becomes one of the perfor-mer's making. Student error becomes less threatening to student andteacher alike once it is realized that real communication involves aninformation gap and is therefore unpredictable. Mistakes cannot beavoided, but the process of trial and error is part of the learning experi-ence.Because I had given my students the freedom to learn, they knew I

respected them, which made them feel more relaxed with me. I becamean 'honorary' member of the group, sometimes used as a source ofreference, sometimes asked to participate. I was often testedwould Ido what / required of them! Would I answer their questions, accept theteasing they directed at one another, or participate in their conver-sation games? By showing my willingness to participate, I also showedthem that I felt that membership in their group was of value. Thisheightened their self-esteem.I do not claim that my students have learned more English than they

would have done in a traditional language classroom; but I feel thatwhat they have learned has become an integral part of theircommunicative strategy. They have learned to interact with one anotherusing English as their means of communication. Their interaction andcooperation has enabled them to leave my course, not with the feelingthat / had taught them well, but with the knowledge that they them-selves had borne a significant responsibility for their own learning andfor their own language development.

Non Frontal Teaching Methodology

Documents