Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology

89

operate, using a great deal of language in the process, to achieve some desired end, like surviving a shipwreck, setting up the front page of a newspaper, or constructing a local radio news broadcast. I have suggested in this article that all-embracing individualisation programmes are unable to achieve what they set out to do because it is not possible to pre-personalise materials other than at a relatively superficial level and because there tends to be a lack of any creative link between the teacher and the learners when the teacher's role is reduced to administering the complexities of the system. I have presented for your consideration the idea that the teacher who constructs a learning programme for a particular group of learners which is filled with materials and activities that stimulate deep personal reactions and who makes it possible for each individual to express these personal reactions will in fact achieve something closer to true individualisation.

Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology and the Effects of Group Cooperation and Student Responsibility in the EFL Classroom
SUZANNE SALIMBENE
HAVE YOU EVER felt superfluous in your EFL classroom? How often have you given your students a group project which involved them so completely that they forgot your presence? The new task and grouporiented materials currently being published for EFL may make the teacher feel redundant because they are organized around student activities rather than being based on teacher presentation, making the teacher the observer instead of the prime mover of the classroom. This change in function may stimulate a re-evaluation of accepted philosophies of teaching and learning. What are the dynamics of peer interaction during group or pair projects? Are the students communicating in English? These group-centered activities may have freed students to learn instead of forcing them to be taught. A lesson based on student cooperation and responsibility rather than on teacher presentation is one in which teaching has been subordinated to learning.

90

Suzanne Salimbene

All of us have experimented with group and pairwork to some degree. For most of us, however, these have been merely expedient ways of letting students practice what we have taught. Could these techniques function as the major teaching strategy in the language classroom? How would increased student responsibility affect the languagelearning process? I decided to consciously take a 'back seat' in my language classroom and to experiment with strategies which would build student self-esteem and interaction, making my students responsible for their own learning through groupwork and pairwork. I have been trying to develop their feeling of being part of a group, discouraging competition and rivalry, and encouraging a feeling of group support and cooperation. I have wanted to give my students the pleasure and satisfaction of discovering that they can teach themselves and each other. This is a personal account of my attempt to alter both my students' and my own concept of the teacher as 'one who teaches' and the student as 'one who is taught'. It describes methods of developing student self-reliance and self-esteem through group interaction and group cooperation. Reorganisation of classroom space The physical arrangement of the classroom sets the stage for the teacher-dominated lesson by dividing the room into 'teacher space' and 'student space'. Traditionally, the space between the students' desks and the chalkboard is the teacher's domain. The teacher's desk can either be used as a shield to separate and protect the 'ruler' from the 'masses', or can be used as a platform upon which he sits, further elevating him above his pupils. The students also use their desks as protection and rarely leave them to cross the no-man's land to the teacher's desk. When the enrollment of the newly formed intensive program I was directing and teaching was smaller than expected, I had all the extra arm-desks removed, placing the remaining arm-desks in a circle. As a result, the teacher became a member of the student circle instead of 'all powerful leader'. The circular desk arrangement aided in breaking down the barrier between teacher and student by creating a 'shared space'. It also redirected communication from student to teacher to student to student because classmates faced one another rather than the teacher, making peer communication easier and more natural. Groupwork was also easier because there was space in the classroom for several circles of various sizes to be formed. Students and desks become mobile instead of static. Development of group responsibility Normally, the teacher is relied upon as THE AUTHORITY from whom all 'knowledge' springs. Therefore students rarely listen to one another 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

Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology

91

ANSWER, and to develop their own 'inner criteria' for correct English. One of my strategies was to have students correct their homework in pairs or in groups of up to five members. The pair or group had to agree upon each answer before going on to the next question. If any student disagreed with another's answer, they had to reason it out with each other. In this way, THE AUTHORITY became THE GROUP. If group consensus couldn't be reached, the teacher attempted to guide rather than inform by asking the group a question which would lead them to the correct solution. At the beginning of the semester the teacher was called upon constantly, often only to confirm the group's decision. Soon, the students began to gain confidence in their own 'inner criteria' and consequently began to call on the teacher less and less often. They began to like to work together, to argue about the correctness of a sentence or the solution to a problem. English became more than an artificial classroom languageit became a vehicle by which they could express their thoughts and opinions. Oral practice and drilling were also transferred from a teacher-directed to a peer-centered activity. The use of flashcards had been demonstrated by the teacher at the beginning of the semester. Soon this practice was turned over to the group. Students would take turns in manipulating the cards and calling on group members to form sentences with the cues. Since the group was responsible for correcting mistakes, the students began to rely upon themselves and each other. This made them feel 'in charge' of their learning. A special sense of responsibility, concern, and cooperation developed because students worked together for a common goal and not in competition with one another for teacher praise. This feeling was nurtured through group assignments, tasks, and projects. The class was divided into groups of up to six members. Each group would be responsible for producing one written assignment, written by a 'secretary' and signed by all members of the group. A discussion about what to write and how to write it made each assignment oral as well as written. When students were first introduced to this type of joint project they searched for short cuts by trying to divide the work so that each member could work independently on one part of the assignment. However, they began to realize that group decisions were better than individual ones and that the feedback and help they received from one another made the work go faster and resulted in a better finished product. Soon everyone, even the weaker students, felt that they had something to contribute. Sometimes groups exchanged and corrected each other's papers, examining them for content as well as grammatical correctness. One instructor even asked the groups to 'grade' each other's papers and give a rationale for the grade. The insight gained in grading another group's work facilitated 'self-evaluation'. Self and peer correction helped develop that inner criterion or sense of correctness so important in language mastery. Students were often given a few minutes

92

Suzanne Salimbene

to re-examine compositions written at home and to exchange papers with their neighbor for peer correction. Time would then be allowed for discussion not only of grammatical correctness but of clarity and organization as well. The instructor would then comment on both the original and the 'corrected' versions and the pair would go over these when the papers were returned. Sometimes the process was reversed. The instructor would collect the papers and circle errors. Then pairs would discuss and correct their work together. Writing assignments in the form of letters were also done, either in class or at home, and 'delivered' to another student. Before answering the letter he received, the student would 'correct' it. Although the subject-matter was given, neither the formation of questions and requests nor their replies were controlled. They represented real communication because an 'information gap' had been created where neither the exact form of the question nor the answer was predictable. The receiver of the letter had to understand what he or she was being told or asked and had to respond with an appropriate reply. Letters were a form of'role play' requiring use of varieties of written English. Role-play activities were an important part of oral work, especially in the part of the program devoted to social functions of English. Because group cooperation, group encouragement, and group support were the essence of all classwork, students were not afraid of 'performing' in front of groups or in front of the class. English became a language through which they could act out a situation, discuss a topic, tell a joke, and communicate their feelings. They soon could address the provost, guest lecturers, and their peers with confidence, and could role-play with their teacher and with each otherreversing the traditional teacher-student role and making the teacher 'the directed' rather than 'the director'. The teacher's role in the student-centered classroom What, then, is the teacher's real role in the student-centered classroom? How is knowledge passed from teacher to student? Is it not the role of the teacher to provide the opportunity and guidance for the learning experience? Caleb Gattegno offers two very different views of education in his book What We Owe Children. He describes the traditional view as one in which
. . . knowledge is conceived as pre-existing and coming down through the teacher, from those gifted people who take knowledge down from the shelves where it is displayed and hand it out to students, who presumably need only memory in order to receive it.1

He offers an illustration which shows knowledge being transferred from the head of the teacher to the heads of his pupils; the gift bestowed by the teacher to his pupils either through lecture, demonstration or especially in the case of language classesthrough repetition and
C. Gattegno, What We Owe Children. New York: Educational Solutions, 1970. p. 18.

Non-Frontal Teaching Methodology

93

manipulation which commits to memory. Gattegno suggests that 'learning should come through functioning: we unify our experiences and build on and integrate what already exists . . .'2 He points out that the language student brings much with him to the language class. He has already mastered one language (his own) and therefore brings with him the ability to generalise and classify information, thereby producing utterances in the new language which are unique. Gattegno implies that it is the teacher's role to develop this ability. In the student-centered classroom the teacher must relinquish his place as the 'giver of knowledge' and become more like a facilitator or helper or, to continue Gattegno's metaphor, a source of reference. In his teacher's guide to Functional English, R. V. White says that 'there is a good case for the teacher trying to avoid intervening as much as possible and instead letting the students get on with the work in their own time.3 He too defines the teacher's role as 'one of classroom manager, helper, and advisor'. However, it is not easy to relinquish one's place at the front of the class and destroy that comfortable feeling of power which comes through total control. The frontal teacher in the language classroom is both a 'star' with a captive audience and an 'orchestra leader' conducting a symphony. The frontal teacher acts out and models the patterns to be practiced and then carefully orchestrates the drills. The student speaks on cue. Control is the keycontrol of material and control of student error. The well prepared language teacher knows what is going to happen in the classroom from minute to minute. By organizing oral practice into groups or pairs, the instructor must relinquish this firm control. Students are given guidelines to begin their practice, but then, as in any instance of 'real communication', the results take an unpredictable course. The instructor can move from group to group listening and correcting, but many mistakes go uncorrected because the instructor cannot listen to every group at once. In addition, the instructor's presence hinders rather than helps the learning process because, when he or she is not there, the students rely upon one another for correction, help, and guidance; the moment the instructor is near, all heads turn back to traditional AUTHORITY for THE ANSWER. The frontal teacher is busy every moment and therefore knows he or she is working. The long detailed lesson plans, the drills, the explanations indicate expertise as a teacher. The exhaustion at the end of the lesson says: I've earned my salary. But has it told the whole truth? Is teacher 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 make sure everything said was correct and helping all the groups equally. When I realized my presence inhibited learning, I tried to take that
2 3

Ibid. R. White, Functional English: 1. Consolidation, Teacher's Book, Nelson, 1979, p. 7.

94

Suzanne Salimbene

'back seat' and to avoid approaching a group unless I was asked for help. At the beginning I felt useless and redundant. In addition, I felt like 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 students, I was able to take stock of what was happening in the classroom. Here were sixteen college-age students who had never before had any responsibility in their learning process. They were totally involved for the entire two-hour lesson. A weak student was conducting a pronunciation drill. Another group was taking turns constructing sentences with phrasal verb flashcards, and the third group was using role-play to practice conversation techniques. There was laughter, noise, and seeming confusion, but the students were learning and they were using English to communicate. Most of all, they were making use of their reasoning power, intelligence, and imagination in the learning process. I had set the tasks and the ground rules, but they were given the freedom to invent their own strategies. They were responsible for their own learning, which increased their feeling of self-esteem. They felt part of a group, learning from one another, responsible for one another. I began to see myself not as a leader but as an impresario giving new talent the opportunity to be born. This, then, I saw as the role of the teacher in the student-centered classroom. The teacher chooses and directs the music, but the resulting dance becomes one of the performer's making. Student error becomes less threatening to student and teacher alike once it is realized that real communication involves an information gap and is therefore unpredictable. Mistakes cannot be avoided, but the process of trial and error is part of the learning experience. Because I had given my students the freedom to learn, they knew I respected them, which made them feel more relaxed with me. I became an 'honorary' member of the group, sometimes used as a source of reference, sometimes asked to participate. I was often testedwould I do what / required of them! Would I answer their questions, accept the teasing they directed at one another, or participate in their conversation games? By showing my willingness to participate, I also showed them that I felt that membership in their group was of value. This heightened 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 that what they have learned has become an integral part of their communicative strategy. They have learned to interact with one another using English as their means of communication. Their interaction and cooperation has enabled them to leave my course, not with the feeling that / had taught them well, but with the knowledge that they themselves had borne a significant responsibility for their own learning and for their own language development.