Willy and I enjoying a bit of sunshine in Brighton, during IATEFL
It is a great pleasure and honor to introduce my new guest blogger. I first met Willy on Twitter. Amazingly enough we had been in the same conference in São Paulo (12th Braz-Tesol National Convention) a couple of months before, and because I hadn’t joined the world of a PLN and the blogosphere, we may have passed each other there and never met. Our first face to face meeting was in December, 2010, at a great tweet-up/happy hour he helped organize while I was in London. Willy is a unique guy. He’s a thinker and a great teacher. Not to mention an amazing person, fun to be with. I can’t wait to meet him at Tesol France in a couple of weeks!
He puts some of what goes through his mind in his blog, Authentic Teaching – I highly recommend it, if you don’t know it yet.
Here Willy approaches something that has been in my mind recently, especially after reading a few blog posts and lurking at some exchanges on Twitter… So, with you: Willy Cardoso!
This is a short series of blogposts on what I understand to be classroom management issue (although I don’t like that the two words collocate). I’m doing this as the usual warm-up before presenting at a conference, in this case the TESOL France Colloquium. Cecilia is going to be there too and since I greatly admire her this seemed like a good opportunity for my first ever guest post.
…….
Last week, I had the pleasure to teach one of the most bright-eyed students I’ve ever had. She was incredibly, and constantly, in a very good mood; interested and interesting – a natural match for a conversation-driven course, which is what we did.
In one of our lessons the conversation unintentionally moved to the topic of classroom interaction and how she saw that in her morning lessons with other teachers (she was taking three hours in a group and 1,5 with me after lunch). So, at some point in this conversation she says:
I don’t know why, every time, the teachers want us to speak in pairs. There’s only one person in my group that has a similar level of English to mine, all others are below, and I don’t learn from them. There’s one boy that never says anything, he’s like furniture and it’s horrible when the teacher asks me to discuss something with him because he never has anything to say, I don’t know what he’s doing there.
Earlier this month, in a different course with different students, there was something like this:
Teacher, I think it is better when we talk to you and not when we have to talk with each other.
Really? Why is that?
All the students speak wrong and I don’t want to speak wrong, I prefer to listen you, is good English, I don’t think I improve with the others.
And I’ve heard similar reports in the staff room as well. What I can think about this is:
- Aren’t they partially right? If you want to learn a language won’t you prefer to speak to those who speak it well?
- Aren’t the teachers missing something there? For instance, to make clear to students why they do so many ‘talk-in-pairs’ moments – whatever reason it is.
So, for you reading this, if you’re a teacher:
What do you say to the student who sees no point in talking to classmates? And more, what is the effect of what you say or do?
Thank you,
Willy Cardoso
http://authenticteaching.wordpress.com
Box of Chocolates 
Good thing about being the mistress of this blog is that I get to comment first!!!
This issue has been on my mind for a while now… As you, I have had students approach me to ask not to be paired with this or that person, to question the validity of pair work. And it has made me think. It made me think as a student, first. I agree a teacher is probably the best model of language for a student to hear and mimic. As a language learner, I like listening to my teachers – I don’t care about TTT so much. I’m being exposed to good language, that’s good enough for me.
BUT
I can also see the value of interacting with other students – weaker or stronger than me. While interacting with other students they will not understand certain things a teacher would – because teachers already know many of the mistakes students make and are able to understand / know what they’re trying to say even when they make mistakes that would prevent a native speaker from understanding things. Not only that! While speaking to other learners, I’m also exposed to mistakes and inaccurate language that I will most likely come across in my real use of the language. Thus, by being “forced” to understand them despite their mistakes, I am also preparing myself to real situations.
So maybe what we have to come to terms with is that TTT may not be the evil thing some people/books make it to be. But pair / group work also has its benefits. Maybe it’s just a matter of explaining that to students? Would they be able to see it?
Thank you for the wonderful post, Willy. A big thank you hug is on the way 😉
Lovely! Thanks for the opportunity to be in the box of chocolates!
I’ll highlight some of your arguments which I hadn’t thought much about.
– ”teachers already know many of the mistakes students make and are able to understand…”; good one from our perspective, but I don’t know if that is convincing enough from a learner’s perspective, at the same rate you’ll see students asking to be corrected ‘every time’ they make a mistake (which is another good discussion…).
– ”While speaking to other learners, I’m also exposed to mistakes and inaccurate language that I will most likely come across in my real use of the language”; That should work very well as one explanation, but again, context is king. In my case, teaching multilingual groups here in London, it is a good argument, even if an ephemeral one (students eventually go back home); but how about in Brazil, where students aspirations are mainly to be able to communicate well with native-speakers? Plus, add the awkward situation of speaking a second language with people who in fact speak your own first language a lot better! (hmm… I have more thoughts now than I can write, I’ll come back later…)
Hello!
I agree, TTT is a necessary part of the EFL classroom, through it we model what we want to share with our students. We also know that different learners learn in different ways, so:
When the reason for communicating is authentic, and the teacher has modeled the correct language, then students will feel less frustration when talking with their peers with less level.
When students don’t see the value of speaking in pairs, perhaps they find little meaning in doing so. Teachers could overuse the interaction pattern, or there could be little reason for speaking in pairs in an activity, even though the ‘book says so. There has to be a reason to do anything. Perhaps students who find little reason in speaking in pairs could come up with a solution….
Hi Ellen
You raise two very important points:
– the reason should be authentic, I generally agree. Now we face the problem of defining authenticity. E.g. an information-gap activity is not authentic enough to model going to a restaurant, but it is authentic enough as a classroom activity in its own right.
– there has to be a reason to do anything. And you suggest students come up with a solution, which I agree, but then the teacher needs to approach this more like a joint attempt than a challenge, if you know what I mean.
Another interesting thing to consider, since you mention ‘reason’ many times is that, people in the classroom most likely have different reasons to be there; in this case, I believe any one of them will, to some extent, be unwilling (or not so motivated) at any given task type. I mean, chances of frustration are abundant – which makes me think that this is also an interesting thing to be discussed in class with students, ”task types vs. expectations”.
Thanks for your comment!
[…] more here: Teacher: Talk in pairs. Student: Why? – A Guest post by Willy … Recommend on Facebook Buzz it up share via Reddit Tumblr it Tweet about it Subscribe to the […]
Ask them if they were ever like the student who is like ‘furniture’, don’t they remember how hard it was? If they feel they were never sitting like a lemon in class, I’d ask them how they would feel if the roles were reversed, would they like to be ignored and thought less of by the ‘better’ students in the class?
Part of learning is being able to explain something in your own words, hopefully clearly and concisely – I think of this quote by Einstein “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”. So part of them working with students at a lower level, hopefully explaining things to them, is actually helping them to make their learning more concrete.
That’s what I’d do to try and indicate the value of working in pairs.
I see, Mr Harrison… appeal to the affective side?
You know, the furniture student mentioned above has in fact some sort of special needs, something related to autism (I’m afraid I can’t explain much ’cause he’s not my student), and although the metaphor was funny, I was quite sad when my student said that because it shows she didn’t really realize what caused the difficulties her classmate had. I would say in this case that it would be ideal if students knew more about each other at a ”learning potential level”, but do we have time for this?
That’s a question I ask myself and generally fail to find a good answer to every day/week/month/year. Welcome to my world, Mr Cardoso ;o)
Seriously, I think considering affective factors is *so* important in ESOL, probably a whole lot more than ‘traditional’ EFL classes. I’d subscribe to your ideal situation, but agree that it isn’t something that time or other constraints allow us to do or foster in our students.
Interesting post. I often hear colleagues commenting that learners resist pairwork. I think a lot comes down to active monitoring and feedback. If learners see that the teacher is using the pairwork activity to pick up on mistakes they are more likely to see its value. If the teacher is gazing out of the window – not so much!
Oh classroom management! How I love these words (#not) – sometimes I get myself thinking: Is a classroom something to be managed? Like a company, a business or a factory? Not sure…
Anyways, I believe that our students are often unprepared to learn. They don’t know when and how to take advantage of their learning. It’s not only with the teacher that we learn. Integration and collaboration play a big role in the learning process. It does not matter whether the person sitting next to you is better or worse: you learn from them. We must help our students to understand that even weak students have something to add. Take for example the mistakes they make and imprint in your mind, so you’ll never make the same mistakes. Moreover, students can always learn to teach each other. A classroom is not a battlefield in which the most proficient will prevail, win, conquer. Students have to work toguether in order to achieve a common goal: command of the language. I never get tired of saying that when you teach, you learn twice. So, help your peer and you shall never ever forget that. And it will actually make you feel good.
I’m not in favor of raising my TTT so that sts get more input from. Altought I believe is truly important to use it effectively. But that should be our last resource. First and foremost, students are to learns that the classroom is sth that should be built collaboratively.
I agree with Ellen when she says that when sts get to the point of complaining about pair work the reason maybe be lying on the fact that teachers are misusing or overusing it. Or Maybe it’s time to rethink the level placement of your students…
hi Bruno, good to hear from you!
It seems you have a firm perspective on the topic, and tend to agree with most of what you say, all that is a good answer to my final question -the first part of it- so I’d like to hear your answer in more practical ways about the second half. ”What is the effect of what you say or do?”
Regarding your question, ”Is a classroom something to be managed?”, I think there’s no straight-forward answer, it’s the old teacherly reply ‘it depends’. What I try to achieve, and I hope others do too, is to articulate a principled answer to whatever I choose to do. There are solid arguments in favor of managing (in the most corporate way) classrooms, as there are against.
[…] Teacher: Talk in pairs. Student: Why? – A Guest post by Willy Cardoso […]
I think the “talk in pairs” can be a bit of a crutch too often leaned-on. There are tons of ways to divide up the class and encourage participation or group work that doesn’t fall back in the same barrel of “ask your partner what they think about…”
I think a lot of it has to do with what Tim commented about above— it’s important to make sure that you’re making use of that partner time to pass among the students and see if there are any language learning moments for both them, and then for the larger group.
btw… CC and Willy… did you know that misspelling “talk in pairs” provides “talk in paris” 😉
I’d say to my students that I’m not going to always be around them wherever they go and speak English, hence they need to learn how to listen to others (as a useful life-long skill, I guess), especially in English. While interacting in pairs and small groups, students are exposed to both correct and incorrect language of their peers, they may become aware of mistakes others make and avoid those themselves,so
pair work is vital in any language classroom, as long as you mix pairs, and explain-justify the reasons behind it to the students.
Thank you, Ceci and Willy for a thought-provoking post!
Hi Tim, Brad and Anastasia.
sorry for not replying individually, but I could only think of something to say after considering your comments as part of the same argument (in my head, at least), and the conclusion is quite simple and not at all new:
Language focus should derive from students’ language. This language can emerge through pair-work as it could from many other ways.
So, could pair-work itself be understood more as raw material than as ‘production’?
With the teacher monitoring to capture language that is later examined and improved instead of monitoring to ‘test’ how much was learned. In case you agree with me, and do something like this, would your students understand this approach?
Willy,
I agree with your view about the pair work being more of a raw material rather than a final production, and this is where I’m aiming to. I often find myself giving an individual, for each pair, help with emerging language which they yet do not know how to from, and lots of feedback on their performance, praise and encouragement (I teach low level students mostly). At times I end up, though, dealing with different emerging vocabulary in pairs, and when that happens everything I’ve taken notice of goes on the board for everypne in the classroom to see.
From what I’ve seen so far in the lessons, students approve of this way of handling pair work activities.
Chances are you’ll end up speaking to another non-native speaker more often than you will to a native speaker. — There’s one answer.
Unsurprisingly, I have nothing original to add…but my fingertips are itchy so I hope you’ll forgive the lack of originality and find it within yourselves to humour me.
What is the whole point of language? Surely it is to communicate. And language teachers are there to help us communicate more effectively – perhas even more efficiently. As such, it surely doesn’t matter what level the listener is? So I don’t buy into the idea that we must pair people up with equals. In a language classroom, we pair students up so that they can construct ideas before they have to contribute to a wider discussion (it can help build confidence) and to maximise the opportunities students have to engage in conversation. We could do whole class conversations but then it becomes a tyranny of the verbose and the student who itches to say something but daren’t (do they really exist?!?!) falls victim to this sort of oppression.
Despite the arguments that L1 and L2 acquisition are incomparable (really?!), I often look to the L1 processes to get some idea of what may or may not be harmful for L2. And in L1 I see parents using the mangled grammar and pronunciation of parentese (I am assuming that we have moved on from calling it “motherese”). No perfect model here for “students” to follow: is ickle oo a pwiddee liddle baba yesheisyesheisyesheis. Research tells us that not only is this ungrammatical drivel of no harm to language acquisition, it is actually a necessary component. Do we extrapolate that we should be beginning our class with, “Now den, my little balls of joy, whaddarewegonnalearntodayziwayzi?Yes! Dassrigh’! Weez gonna lookadd de pwezi-wezi perfick!” In this kind of world, JarJar Binks would consistently win teachr of the year. But we can extrapolate from it that humans are sense-making machines (apologies for the automatisation of our species). We take substandard input and we use cognitive strategies to squeeze meaning out of it. The employment of these strategies is what makes us better learners. So, the student who hears sub-standard input and who struggles to understand it is going to be more successful than the student who is only ever exposed to perfect models. Why? Because they are more engaged in the meaning-making and, going back to my original assertion, maning-making is what communication is all about.
As a teacher, I challenge the students who offer the opinions Willy mentions in his post. If a learner tells me that they can’t improve, I suggest that it is more that they refuse to improve. After all, it is ridiculous (in my arrogant opinion) for learners to blame the environment they are in for stopping them from improving. It is their duty to improve (that is why they have forked out the cash). A good learner is going to turn any learning environment into an opportunity-rich learning environment.
That said, too much pair work is not necessarily the best option. When observing classes, I have seen teachers pair students up to talk about something for no obvious reason. When the students don’t talk about it, the teacher doesn’t do anything. The time ticks by until the teacher stops any conversation that has not already died and then says, “OK…now let’s look at this text…” which leaves me wondering what the point was. And of course, there isn’t any point. It was just something that they did because it’s something that we do. It mixes up the interaction patterns and this, it would seem, is its only point. I ask teachers what they hoped to gain from the pairwork, whether it bothered them that people weren’t speaking in pairs, whether it was important for them to speak in pairs, whether the failure to engage in pairwork detracted in any way from the next activity, whether or not they might have omitted this from the lesson, whether or not they thought that the students had actually learned anything from the pair work.
Regrettably, however, I think that many of our teachers are -or feel themselves to be- underpaid and overworked. As a result, they are less likely to go away and give serious consideration to such questions any more than a burger chef in a busy franchise is going to ask themselves questions about whether or not the gherkins should go on top of the onions or beneath the lettuce. Teachers fill lessons up with activities that have no other rationale than they help to fill the lesson up. Discuss!
For Bhudda’s sake, Young Lao!
Your comments are often better than the posts, stop it!
So, I don’t have much to say now except that since you posted this I’ve been thinking about: “A good learner is going to turn any learning environment into an opportunity-rich learning environment.” And the conclusion is that I’ll use it as a prompt in my next workshops if you don’t mind.
Thanks!
PS Where the gherkins should go is far more important than pair work, I thought burger chefs had figured that out already.
Hey guys,
What an interesting metaphor! It’s like seen the most intriguing teaching topics been explained and understood.
It’s great when a post provokes so much reflection and leads us to plan on changes.
Thanks Willy, Lao The Yonger and you Ceci.
@Tyson 75% to quote Graddol’s british council report in 2007 😉 Honestly, I think that would be a good angle to introduce to SS.
And Willy, I would agree that it’s both raw material and production. I think the pairs issue might be reflecting a larger problem— students that aren’t comfortable with certain partners, or initiating topics that might not necessarily engage the students, or the worst problem, students that don’t want to be engaged… though, those are our horror stories, not our typical classroom, unless we’re horribly unlucky.
It’s tempting to challenge students as Diarmuid (Lao) says below, and I’ve gone that far before, but as always it’s more of a matter of how you say it, then what you say. Cheers for the discussion all !
It’s common knowledge now, my boy. 😉
[…] lesson ideasHomeContact18 October 2011 ~ 0 CommentsWhy work in pairs? ELT news feedWilly Cardoso starts an interesting discussion on Cecilia Lemos’ blog.Share this post: Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on […]
Hi Willy,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts a asking us these questions.
So, what have I said, in the past, to students who have questioned pair work (for many of the reasons you outlined and other colleagues as well in their comments)?
Well, frankly, what is closer to real life? Talking in groups or having an exchange with another person (a pair)? I tend to think that having an exchange with another person possibly is closer to real life than group exchanges…so this has always been one of my points to reluctant pair-work students. Our exchanges generally take place in a one-to-one fashion, with all the awkwardness this may generate, especially if you are speaking to someone who does not share your mother-tongue. Yes, it is difficult, yes, there may be differences between our command of the target language and this makes it all the more important to try and experience these moments, making use of the many speaking strategies we sometimes actually encourage learners to try out in class.
But I would, on the whole, agree that teachers may use PW activities a tad too much. I am, personally, a far greater fan of group work as I think it does allow for a greater opportunity for meaning negotiation and actual really rich learning opportunities amongst learners. I have actually done extensive research with different level learners working in groups and it is amazing how much peer-teaching they do! And it is exactly because people learn at different rates, pick things up differently and notice language in a different manner that they are able to scaffold mini-learning experiences for each other.
I sometimes think that trying to explain why we do things can have a very limited effect. But we can perhaps exemplify and set up an activity which might show learners how they can actually learn from each other (thinking perhaps of TBL here for this purpose). They learn by doing and by experiencing. Of course, you do run the risk of things not working out…but then all you´ve done is prove they were right and then you DO need to re-think the composition of your class/group.
Take care,
Valéria
Hi Valeria
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience.
I found it interesting that you said explaining why we do things may have limited effect. It’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about and the main reason to write this post. I still don’t know the real effect of making clear the rationale behind classroom activities, mainly because I’m teaching on a continuous enrolment course so students (and myself) come and go every week, it’s really hard to follow up. Anyway, I agree with you that we can demonstrate and I’ve in fact developed a couple of activities that aims at raising students’ awareness of the influence everyone else in the room has on their learning.
I love the bit about ‘things not working out’, that the best opportunity to re-think what we do, as you said.
At the moment I’m learning Italian; let’s say I’m intermediate level. The other day I happened to meet someone and the only language we had in common was Italian however he was of a lower level than me.
So we ended up speaking bad Italian to each other but the thing was that I was really having to rack my brains and come up with ways of phrasing and language that he would understand so for example when I used a noun which he didn’t understand, I found myself having to describe it to him so he’d get in.
The end result? All good – I worked a damn site harder speaking to him than to my teacher!!
Hmm, what I know is that I’m probably guilty of two things.
First of all, I most likely overuse “talk in pairs” (though I criminally underuse Brad’s “talk in Paris”) and have, for a while now, simply seen it as a part of a mechanical process “Introduce, Explain, Talk in Pairs, Report Back, Move On, Introduce, Explain, Talk in Pairs, Report Back, Move On…” From this, I now see that I am not asking a very important question of this activity I use on daily basis, the question that Willy got from his student that kicked off this whole blog post and excellent discussion – “Why?”
Secondly, I probably don’t use pairwork as effectively as I should. What really rang true for me was Tim Julian’s comment that “a lot comes down to active monitoring and feedback. If learners see that the teacher is using the pairwork activity to pick up on mistakes they are more likely to see its value.” Now I’m not guilty of gazing out of the window, but I have seen pairwork as an opportunity for students to practise with each other, try things out and build confidence, HOWEVER, I usually take a step back at this point.
Why would I do this? Well, I always saw that my presence nearby (and let’s be fair, in a noisy classroom of talking in pairs, you’ve got to move around and get close to be able to hear anything meaningful) always disrupted the flow of conversation as the students became aware of my observations. But, is this a bad thing?
Perhaps not. Sometimes the students have used this time and my proximity to turn to me and ask me questions, or simply start the whole conversation again with me. I’m reevaluating my role in these activities. I use to stay away from the students based on the science that tells us you can’t really observe something without affecting the outcome. However, I think that now, a visible presence and more obviously active monitoring validates the pairwork and, moreover, makes meaningful observation a lot easier and probably a lot better. Funny about some of the beliefs we hold onto without really questioning them, I wonder how many more I’ve got.
Thanks Willy & Cecilia, and thanks Tim. Great topic and some great points and opinions to digest.
Very thought provoking post and one which strikes a chord with me. We’re so often told to encourage student interaction and the sharing of knowledge, but rarely does anyone think of the demotivating effect that this can have on those in the class doing all the giving and getting very little in return.
Good thing you guest posted here, Willy. I finally got round to adding you to my blog roll.
[…] The value of pair work – Another pre-conference post I wrote around the topic of classroom management, hosted by my dear friend Cecilia Coelho (@CeciELT) […]
I wonder how students would feel if you gave them no time to talk in pairs at all. I’ve been enduring Japanese lessons where the teacher gives us no talking time at all. It’s very frustrating. I can learn words from books, but I can’t speak Japanese outside lesson (I’m in the UK). Even though I’m a complete beginner I want time to practice the four phrases I know, with and without the teacher standing over me.
As in life, balance is everything.
[…] post is deliberately intended to act as a continuation of an issue raised in Willy Cardoso’s guest post on Cecilia Lemos’ blog. I recommend reading that post first before continuing with my […]
I’ve just written a follow up post: thanks for the inspiration.
http://www.yearinthelifeofanenglishteacher.com/2011/11/have-you-ever-wondered-why-your-group-activities-fail-to-inspire-students/
Wow, wow, wow. How did I just come across this post? Am I living in another universe?
Well, dear Ceci and Willy this is really one of the most wonderful posts and comment discussions I have ever read so far. Thank you and all the above who gave their opinon. I am glad I have just read it as the same thing that happened to Willy and his student had happened to me in one of my classes. I don’t usually give too much pair work discussions, but when I do I want them to be paired with whom ever they want. One of my student said she would rather speak to me than her pair. Well, she said she did talk to her pair but wouldn’t it be ok now if she practiced with me as well. At this point I asked her what they discussed more like a feedback and she was so happy about it, but you don’t always have the time to speak with all of the sutudents in class f2f when there are 30 of them. I must say I will bare in my mind all the great ideas and comments of other teachers regarding this post; how it doesn’t matter at what level your pair is, it’s the practice of the language that counts. I am sure I will be coming back to this post and absorbe it one more time because it has made me improve my teaching skills. I hope you all had excellent “Talk in Paris” and not just “talk in pairs” – there were some karaoke talks as well! 🙂
thanks for your wow comment
sorry for delayed reply, just noticed that I was not notified when someone posted here.
talk(s) in Paris was great, btw. Ceci’s talk was one of the great ones I attended and there wasn’t dull pair work in it, which was a relief.
I think you need to explain to students that they won’t always be talking to native speakers and an important skill will be talking to and understanding English spoken by non-natie speakers.
Jon.
Hi!
I’m sorry I took so long to reply… I was taken by a big project and could not spend time in my blog at all.
I agree with you, the students have to be aware they will be speaking to non-native speakers as well. But we also have to acknowledge that the students – at least the Brazilian ones – still give a lot of importance to sounding native-like (which they believe can only be achieved by having the most exposure to native-speakers). They feel their English will only be considered fluent is they achieve that. If we still have many teachers around the world that agree with that, how can we hope our students believe it?
Thanks for stopping by and leaving your opinion!
I guess it depends WHY they don’t want to talk to classmates. Is it due to being shy or superior? You have to convince students that they need to practice English in class. If they feel shy, tell them it’s better to make mistakes in the classroom than outside. If they feel superior, tell them nicely to get over it.
Hi Sharon,
Sorry I have taken so long to reply… as I explained on the previous reply I took up a very large project with the tightest of deadlines, which kept me away from my blog.
In the post Willy quotes a couple of students, and one mentions that he/she feels only one of the other students has a similar language level, so they feel superior. They feel they should only talk to people who have either the same level or above it – but not too much better, or else there will be no learning, no improving.
Is the problem in us teachers not being able to – or effective in – raising students’ awareness as to how learning takes place? Food for thought!
[…] Teacher: Talk in pairs. Student: Why? comes from Box of Chocolates. The thirty-four comments off excellent reasons to give students for why there is value in having them speak with each other — even if neither is fluent in English. […]
[…] with us Why work in pairs? Posted on 18 October, 2011 by Simon Thomas Willy Cardoso starts an interesting discussion on Cecilia Lemos’ blog.Share this post:Bookmark on DeliciousDigg this postRecommend on […]
Asking questions are truly nice thing if you are not understanding anything completely, but this paragraph offers nice understanding yet.