Let Them Talk! Teaching High School Spanish Conversation

Wellington High School, Wellington, FL

Language, that wonderfully arbitrary arrangement of sounds and words, does not require its users to sit alphabetically in rows. Some speakers may sit, stand, walk around, and gesticulate while speaking, so why should the community spirit of the classroom be any different?¹³⁷ The establishment of «conversational partnerships» (CP's) allows students to rehearse conversational roles, plan strategies, and polish pronunciation. What are CP's and how do they work? CP's can be initiated in any Spanish class, in any school, as an auxiliary to any textbook at any time. There is no cost and the level of personal involvement is as varied as each individual teacher. Only movable seating, the students and the teacher are needed.

Conversational partnerships incorporate elements of all major methodologies, with the objective of developing spoken proficiency. The CP is an agreement between two or more students that they will be responsible for demonstrating their oral proficiency in Spanish¹³⁸. They will express their verbal abilities to the class as a «public conversation» or to the teacher as a «private conversation». A portion of the final course grade, called «oral work», reflects their development as speakers of Spanish. Each student is responsible for the welfare of the partnership. To high school students, the idea of moving around the room, shaking hands, manipulating objects and talking may seem like a return to the classroom of their earlier years. We must let them talk as long as they are involved in conversational work. Unbridled high spirits threaten the democratic adhesion of the CP if the teacher does not circulate and establish contact with each CP. The CP teacher must not only expect, but be able to thrive in the din, since the enjoyable fun of CP's leads to a reduction of student anxiety¹³⁹. CP's produce «conversaciones en español», on predetermined dates following teacher directed guidelines.

In order to integrate CP's with any text, the stated or implied objective of the unit under study becomes the focal point of the conversation. One current Spanish text states a unit objective as «(to introduce) the regular formation of the subjunctive and the use of the subjunctive moods in indirect commands» (Valetta and Valette, 329). Student mastery of the complexities of the verbal structures requires the teacher's methodological skill as a grand grammatical illuminator. Student proficiency, on the other hand, is demonstrated within a CE. The teacher tells the class that the CP's will display their abilities to use the subjunctive (as taught) within indirect commands. A suggestion may be to structure the body of the conversation to include as many introductory phrases as possible (Quiero que tú... Ella insiste que yo...). Vocabulary-centered work can be assigned, using any or all vocabulary on a given page. The students create remarkable scenarios when they know the parameters of what must be included in their work¹⁴⁰. There are additional possibilities before or after major vacations when CP's can be asked to talk about their plans or what they experienced. The conversation does not replace individual mastery-oriented instruction nor the traditional tests, but rather, it amplifies such instruction beyond the boundaries of the classroom.¹⁴¹ CP's exchange phone numbers, gather after school, and for major performances, arrange to tape record or videotape their productions. As with all things in our profession, we must carefully explain to our classes the description of the process of CP's before requiring it as a class expectation.

As all natural conversation begins with a recognition of the other's existence, so, too, conversations must begin with an appropriate greeting. Here, the CP teacher requires the correct greetings for the time and situation, and then encourages follow-up chit-chat in Spanish which lends a more natural tone to the conversation. Appropriate handshakes and other body language take on deeper meanings as the CP's express their intent. After

––––––––   834   ––––––––

the «greetings» the CP's develop the «body» of the conversation, including predetermined thematic, grammatical or lexical items. The CP teacher must be specifically clear when outlining the «body» of the conversation, since misunderstandings that cause confusion in crease anxiety. Simply ending the conversation after the requirements have been satisfied yields an unreal, lopsided situation. It must end with a logical conclusion that expresses itself through appropriate leave-taking phrases. How long should the conversations be? The beginning conversation timed at one minute evolves in length and number of utterances into natural performances of several minutes. By increasing the length in 15 second increments, the students rework previous materials in order to keep the conversational ball rolling. The CP's know that every conversation will have a specific topic, a length and a certain format. The format has predictable parts: (1) greetings and chit-chat, (2) the grammatical, lexical or thematic body, and (3) the logical conclusion. The CP's also know that they will have class time to move around the room and work, and that performances will take place as scheduled. Allowing one class period, including discussion of the guidelines, is appropriate, but time may be lengthened or shortened to suit the circumstances. Longer conversations require more preparation time. Performances are the following day in class. The «homework» is for the student to learn his/her part of the conversation. As the CP's move their desks around, the noise level increases, at which time the CP teacher must circulate and coach all the groups with respect to their script.

In the first and second year classes, the script is an important student-centering de vice. It focuses the CP's attention on the requirements of the conversation and at the same time, yields a written, tangible product from which the CP's may experiment linguistically. New lexical items coupled with recent grammatical structures appear as a miniplay on paper Scripts may be collected as examples of writing, or the CP's may use them solely for their organization and preparation. In this case, the element of teacher and audience surprise during presentation heightens the students' creative inclinations. Once CP's are a well established part of the class, the teacher rarely needs to read a script, since class strategies and CP brainstorming techniques lead CP's to ask for coaching when they work themselves into exitless linguistic corners. Regardless of whether the script is to be collected or not, the CP teacher circulates, coaches, and helps with pronunciation, while the CP's practice their lines¹⁴². Class noise and various types of interaction must never muffle the sounds of the FL, nor turn the class into an excuse to indulge in private conversation. For all students, this active work will seem new since CP construction, preparation and study offer a distinct change from their written mastery oriented evaluation study skills.

CP's demonstrate their abilities in one of three formats: the public performance, the private performance or the taped performance. Public performances take place before the entire class (props are encouraged). By moving the desks into a theater setting, the class prepares for performances. CP's then sign up on the «list of order» sheet on the board. After several conversations, the class community relaxes to the point where CP's listen to other CP's to borrow ideas. Follow-up comprehension exercises may be assigned¹⁴³. The teacher evaluates the public CP, but does not share this information with the group at the time of the performance. Private conversations take place in a designated part of the room and are between the teacher and the CE Evaluation is immediate and summation exercises may be assigned. Videotaped performances are time consuming (about one hour of outside preparation for one minute of taped production), and, unless the students are familiar with the equipment, are reserved for the end of each semester¹⁴⁴.

Professional literature abounds with theoretical procedures concerning grading oral proficiency in the FL conversation¹⁴⁵. Reducing an interactive experience to a letter or a number seems to be an unfair fate for the FL teacher, and many teachers prefer not to grade oral work at all, feeling that such grading is of little overall value. While we all differ with respect to personal educational philosophies and methodological styles, the following discussion may be of use to teachers whose students need immediate reinforcement as a motivator¹⁴⁶.

The A conversation: The dialog is well conceived, rehearsed and delivered. Voice inflection and textually appropriate body language make the conversation delightfully proficient.

––––––––   835   ––––––––

There are no unnatural hesitations (lines have been well rehearsed) and the partners under stand what they are saying. The few mispronunciations and grammatical «errors» do not obstruct the listener's comprehension.

The B conversation: The dialog is well written, though relies heavily on past conversational work. It is predictable. The interchange is easily understood. Pronunciation and grammatical problems occasionally interfere with comprehension, though the CP's overcome this by perseverance. There may be one or two unnatural hesitations, due to mechanical repetition. The listener senses that the CP's, at times, do not know what they are saying.

The C conversation: The dialog exhibits a lack of logical cohesion. At times, the listener must strain to understand the flow of words. Mispronunciations and grammatical problems abound, making the delivery stilted and mechanical. The listener knows that the students are reciting at each other. The students complete the conversation.

The D conversation: Poor preparation and uneven partnership working skills typify the lowest category. The dialog is at times illogical, since the sentences cannot bear the communicative burden of their ill-conceived efforts. It is difficult to appreciate. This is the lowest grade.

The Zero conversation: This is not a grade, but rather a reminder that the conversation will have this grade if it is not performed according to schedule. In the cases of partner absence, assigning the zero-grade lets the CP know that making up the conversation is its responsibility¹⁴⁷.

The question of whether to evaluate each partner separately or as a CP is one that the CP teacher determines on a daily basis. Are we evaluating the impact of the conversation as a whole, or are we analyzing the individual speakers? Do we undo all of our anxiety reducing intentions when we hold the CP accountable as a group, especially when one partner, for whatever reason, is not well prepared? Does the individual evaluation weaken the CP's sense of group responsibility? Due to the fluid nature of the high school classroom, the following schemata works well: individual grades for short conversations (under two minutes), and group grades for longer performances.

There may be problems along the way There are possible student-centered problems. For example: «My partner is absent today». The zero-grade option relieves the prepared partner of fear of failure. Another concern is: «My partner didn't learn his/her part». Performances take place as scheduled, with the unprepared person reading from the script, while the prepared partner speaks. Since the unprepared conversant is unable to take part in the conversation, there is no participation, which means no grade. «I've tried, but I can't get this fine down!» So often, students produce conversational masterpieces on paper, yet have trouble learning the 50 words in each utterance. A solution is to practice with the «conversation cue card» (see note 6).

Teacher-centered problems maybe: «What do I do when they're done?» After several conversations, the CP teacher will be able to adjust the rehearsal time to agree with the number of CP's in a given class within the individual class time frame. The time at the end of the period can be used for teacher input and general comments about errors in usage or structure. Written assignments that reemphasize the topical guidelines (in text or created) may be assigned. When CP's are incomplete due to absences, the CP teacher places two students together for a «one time CE» If an odd number are present, a third person can be added to a well established CP and have that group produce a three-person conversation. If the class has an odd number of students, encourage the formation of odd numbered CP's, adjusting time length upward accordingly. An absent conversant's next grade may be doubled (to cover the missed conversation) or simply left blank. In order to ensure that CP conversations are progressing within the corpus of the class, the CP teacher can arrange the conversations topically according to the objectives of the unit under study. Requiring specific vocabulary and phrases contained within certain grammatical structures prevents predictable staleness from entering the CP classroom.

Conversation partnerships facilitate a student-centered classroom and aid in developing democratic cooperative work skills while providing a refreshing change of pace for teachers and students. Once the CP's become an established part of the curriculum, the students will hear themselves developing into true speakers of Spanish.

Krasmsch, C. «Interactive Discourse in Small and Large Groups». Interactive Language Teaching. NY Cambridge UP, 1987. 17-32.

Lonergan, Jack. Video in Language Teaching. NY Cambridge UP, 1989.

Long, M. and P. Porter. «Group Work, Interlanguage Talk and Second Language Acquisition». TESOL Quarterly 19 (1985): 207-28.

Dreikurs, Rudolph, Bernice Grunwald and Floyd Pepper. «Effective Democratic Methods», In Maintaining Sanity in the Classroom. NY Harper and Row, 1982. 65-175.

Hahn, Sidney, et. al. «Grading Classroom Oral Activities: Effects on Motivation and Proficiency». FLA 22 (May, 1989): 241-52.

Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. NY: Pergamon: 1982.

Sanders, Sara. «Classroom Community: A Prerequisite for Communication». FLA 22 (May 1989): 277-81.

Underhill, Nic. Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques. NY Cambridge UP, 1987.

Valette, Jean Paul and Rebecca Valette. Spanish for Mastery 2. NY D. C. Heath, 1984.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 73, Number 3, September 1990