experimental essay

Centre ES330 IH Madrid Delta February 2011

David Lind PDA Experimental

Professional Development Assignment Part B – Experimental Practice

Using dictogloss as a communicative and collaborative resource for teaching grammar to young learners.

2,019 words

By David Lind

Centre ES 330

February 2011



Contents:

1. Background page 3

Introduction page 3

What is dictogloss? page 3

Professional Interest page 4

2. Lesson

Young learner concerns for dictogloss page 5

Objectives page 5

3. Post-lesson evaluation page 7

Bibliography page 8



1. Background

Introduction

Imagine the following: a learner-centred way to teach grammar which is inherently aims-driven,

encourages verbal interaction, provides a clear and meaningful context from start to finish, gets

students to notice their own grammatical shortcomings, activates top-down and bottom-up

listening processes, and provides note-taking, reading, writing and speaking skills practice. And

what if I said all this can be yours, for the ridiculously low price of 30 minutes’ preparation time?

Some kind of miracle method teachers can only dream about? No, I say! It’s for real, and it’s called

dictogloss.

The fact that I have had to wait twenty years to try it out speaks volumes about the value of

professional development. My reasons for choosing dictogloss as the focus of my experimental

lesson, therefore, are quite straightforward: a resource which incorporates this many advantages

and fetches universal praise in the literature simply seems too good to be true - I need to find out

for myself if dictogloss is all it’s cracked up to be.

What is dictogloss?

Dictogloss, also known as grammar dictation or dicto-comp (Thornbury, 1999:84), was first

introduced by Ruth Wajnryb (1986) as The Dictogloss Approach, though in modern ELT

terminology it would be more aptly classified as a technique. It involves a multi-stage process in

which learners first listen to a text read by the teacher at normal speed (usually twice, the second

time taking notes), and then collaboratively try to reconstruct it as completely and accurately as

possible, though not necessarily word for word. Underlying the technique are theoretical

assumptions about language learning which have gained widespread support in recent years:

It assumes learners are capable of understanding the meaning of target language items

contained within a message, as long as it is graded to suit the level of the group. For

example, if a teacher is using a dictogloss procedure to present the past perfect, she

expects learners to understand its meaning in context, even if they are not immediately

able to produce the structure had + past participle. This assumption reflects an inductive

approach to grammar, that is, one that incorporates a focus on context and meaning prior

to a focus on form. It also relies on the concept of comprehensible input (Krashen and

Terrel, 1983) as indispensable to second language acquisition, a lasting contribution of The

Natural Approach (ibid.)

It encourages learners to ‘notice the gap’ between their own interlanguage, or the

language they are currently producing (Richards:267), and the target language. As a

consequence of this, dictogloss fosters consciousness-raising, i.e., awareness of certain



features of the language (Thornbury, 2006). This, in turn, can help foster appropriation

(ibid.), whereby learners take ownership of linguistic features after a process of a

collaborative noticing and restructuring. Dictogloss, therefore, obeys a constructivist theory

of learning, which claims that individuals ‘construct knowledge’ (ibid.), rather than

passively receive it.

As stated by Maley in his introduction to Wajnryb (1990:4), dictogloss requires learners to

draw on a “nexus of interrelated skills” in order to complete the task. This reflects an

ongoing trend in ELT towards a preference for lessons which integrate different skills as a

means of optimizing the classroom experience for the learner.

True to the spirit of progressive schools of thought in modern education, dictogloss is a

learner-centred technique, with the learners’ attention directed more towards each other

than at the teacher (with the exception of the initial stages of the lesson).

Insofar as it is an activity which favours noticing, dictogloss can help prevent premature

fossilization, or acquisition of entrenched, incorrect linguistic features (Richards,

2002:267). As a preventive measure, dictogloss may have added value in the context of

young learners, whose state of fossilization is not as far advanced as in their adult learner

counterparts.

The dictogloss procedure has captured the attention of several ELT researchers, not all of whom

are primarily concerned with its usefulness in teaching grammar. Wilson (2003), who has adapted

the dictogloss procedure to create what he calls ‘discovery listening’, points out that ‘just because

a task was originally designed for noticing grammar does not mean it is the only thing students will

notice as they perform the task.’ Wajnryb (1990), herself, says that over time dictogloss will help

learners ‘update and refine their aural and note-taking skills.’ Nevertheless, for the purposes of my

experimental lesson, I am primarily interested in the usefulness of dictogloss as a tool for teaching

discrete grammatical items.

Professional interest

It seems that with dictogloss Wajnryb stumbled upon a very user-friendly procedure with few or

no critics – giving it a go quickly became an obligation for me, rather than merely a professional

interest. My curiosity for dictogloss began with the positive ‘vibe’ that seems to emanate from it,

not only in the literature, but also amongst my Delta course tutors and peers. As I started my

preliminary research, I became intrigued by the fact that dictogloss seems to reconcile, at least in

part, otherwise irreconcilable teaching traditions: on the one hand, it pays homage to Krashen’s

comprehensible input, while at the same time it places special emphasis on form and actively

engaging cognitive processes. And although its founder, Wajnryb, comes from a completely

different background, the collaborative nature of the dictogloss procedure – with its emphasis on



working with others who may possess more developed skills – would not be at variance with

Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural learning theory.

From a practical standpoint, the fact that dictogloss requires relatively little preparation time is

particularly appealing to teachers, who, like myself, seek to reconcile the professional criteria for a

good lesson with the time restraints of their daily lives. Thornbury (1999:26) calls this the ‘ease

factor’. Pedagogically, it is also a very ‘economical’ (ibid.) procedure, as it requires relatively little

time to set up and favours a high proportion of time-on-task to time spent listening to

instructions.

Dictogloss also lends itself to diverse uses: it can be used specifically to focus on a particular

language item or set of language items; or it can be used more generally, to expose shortcomings

in the learners’ interlanguage as they arise during the lesson. As Thornbury (1999:85) puts it, ‘in

the process of noticing-the-gap, dictogloss allows for learners at different levels and with different

needs to notice different language features.’

2. Lesson Young learner concerns for dictogloss

Thus far in the course, my assignments have had as their focus a group of upper-intermediate,

adult learners. I think it would be useful, therefore, for this experimental lesson, to focus on a

group of learners with completely different characteristics: a group of pre-intermediate, young

learners, aged 12-13. I am particularly interested in seeing how these young learners respond to

the collaborative aspect of lesson, and whether dictogloss can engage young learners and ‘make

learning grammar fun.’

Having never attempted dictogloss before, I feel a certain degree of apprehension about how it

will turn out in the classroom. This feeling is accentuated by the fact that young learners, for

better for worse, are far less adept than adult learners at concealing their attitude towards class

activities. I therefore took special care in choosing a theme which I felt confident young learners

could relate to - school.

Objectives

Teacher objectives:

My objectives for this lesson, from a teacher’s point of view, are the following:



Teach grammar in a novel way. I have been teaching grammar for twenty years, and I

would like to add a new dish to my menu of grammar lessons, which I feel is in need of

some variety.

Stimulate my own interest in grammar by coming at it from a different direction. I am

curious to see if seeing dictogloss in action will stimulate my interest in the same way as

my pre-lesson research has.

Create a more learner-centred approach to teaching grammar. One of my main goals for

this lesson is to add a more dynamic, learner-driven dimension to my grammar lessons,

which were previously excessively dependent on the course book.

Learner objectives:

From the learners’ point of view, my objective for this lesson is threefold:

Engage learner interest with a new activity which will invite them to use a broad set of

skills simultaneously.

Foster a collaborative spirit and make the road to the target language social, interactive,

and low-stress.

Create a sense of empowerment, by having completed a task which at first glance may

have seemed a bit difficult.

Ascertaining if objectives have been met:

The following are ways in which I intend to evaluate the extent to which I have reached the afore-

mentioned objectives:

Observation. I have asked my tutor, who has been monitoring my professional

development for the past four months and who is aware of the areas I am keen on

improving as a teacher, to observe the lesson. After the lesson I will be asking her for

feedback on the lesson in general, and on my objectives, in particular.

‘Live learner feedback.’ During the lesson I will be observing the level of motivation and

the degree of collaboration within the groups.

Post-lesson reflection. Regarding my teacher objectives, after the lesson I will be

reflecting on whether the lesson itself constituted ‘a new dish’ worthy of including in my

menu of grammar lessons.

Homework. In order to gauge the effectiveness of the focus-on-form component of the

procedure, i.e. whether or not the grammar was taught effectively, I will be giving the

group homework from the coursebook, specifically highlighting the target language from

the lesson.



3. Post-lesson evaluation Strengths: My biggest fear prior to this lesson was to see fourteen blank stares looking up at me after the second reading of the dictogloss text. To my relief, this fear did not materialize. Bearing in mind that they had never tried anything like dictogloss before, the group as a whole understood the task instructions better than I had anticipated, with students in each team assuming their assigned roles enthusiastically, and with buzzing - almost frenzied in certain moments - collaboration going on throughout the reconstruction phase. Time-on-task accounted for well over half of the lesson, and each group of students produced meaningful chunks of language which would later serve as the basis for the focus on form stage. As for my objectives, though it may be premature to reach conclusions on the effectiveness of dictogloss for this group after just one session, it has been, nevertheless, an encouraging start. The evidence I have for this is twofold: my own impressions - the ‘feel’ of the activity was engaging and enjoyable for me, and judging by the enthusiastic response to the activity of the group as a whole, I believe it is fair to say they shared this sentiment; and my tutor’s feedback, which was positive overall, for much the same reasons. Weaknesses of the lesson/areas to work on: Though the group reacted well to the dictogloss procedure, as a whole, I felt it accentuated the shortcomings of the lower-level students, and that I was unable to deal properly with the sense of disorientation felt by these particular learners. Dictogloss does seem to have the tendency to polarize the group, as it brings to the fore learners’ strengths and weaknesses. At times during the lesson this produced a bit of stress for me, which I had not anticipated and for which I did not have a mitigation strategy. For future dictogloss lessons I will have to include this in my anticipated problems and find out how other teachers have dealt with this problem. Among the areas I still need to work on, and which may enhance the dictogloss procedure the next time I chose to use it, are my vocabulary pre-teaching skills, and my grammatical explanations. I realized that I lack confidence and precision in these areas, and that I need to do a little research and consulting with tutors and peers to get some fresh ideas in this regard, as I seem to be tripping over this same stone over and over again. Conclusion In sum, I would say my experimental lesson was a testimony to the effectiveness of dictogloss as an engaging activity for first-timers and to its merits as a learner-driven, self-sustaining procedure.



Bibliography

Krashen, S. D. and T. D. Terrel The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom 1983.

Pergamon, Oxford.

Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2002

Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.

Thornbury, S. How to Teach Grammar 1999 Harlow, Essex. Longman.

Thornbury, S. ‘Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote ‘noticing.’ ELT Journal 51/4 1997.

Thornbury, S. An A-Z of ELT. A Dictionary of Terms and Concepts 2006 Macmillan Publishers Limited, Oxord.

Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society 1978 Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.

Wajnryb, R. Grammar Workout: The Dictogloss Approach 1986 Melting Pot Press, Sydney

Wajnryb, R. Grammar Dictation 1990 Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wilson, M. ‘Discovery listening – improving perceptual processing’ ELT Journal 57/4 2003.

experimental essay

Documents