ANALYZING THE INFLUENCE OF A RADIO PROGRAM PRODUCTION AS A NATURALLY-OCCURRING DISCOURSE ACTIVITY ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE EFL SPOKEN INTERACTION

COMPETENCE: A PILOT STUDY

CERN CHVEZ JULIN MAURICIO FLREZ VIDAL CARLOS ANDRS JALBIN COLLAZOS LEIDY JOHANA SOLARTE NAVARRO LILIANA VARN GUZMN MARGARET SOFA

UNIVERSITY OF CAUCA SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES POPAYN, COLOMBIA JULIO 2012

ANALYZING THE INFLUENCE OF A RADIO PROGRAM PRODUCTION AS A NATURALLY-OCCURRING DISCOURSE ACTIVITY ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE EFL SPOKEN INTERACTION COMPETENCE: A PILOT STUDY

A PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE BACHELOR IN MODERN LANGUAGES ENGLISH FRENCH

BY: CERN CHVEZ JULIN MAURICIO FLREZ VIDAL CARLOS ANDRS JALBIN COLLAZOS LEIDY JOHANA SOLARTE NAVARRO LILIANA VARN GUZMN MARGARET SOFA

PROF. PABLO E. ACOSTA ACOSTA, CHAIRPERSON

UNIVERSITY OF CAUCA SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES POPAYN, COLOMBIA JULIO 2012

UNIVERSITY OF CAUCA

The Undersigned Committee of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences approves the Thesis of Carlos Andres Flrez Vidal, Julian Mauricio Cern Chvez, Leidy Johana Jalbin Collazos, Liliana Solarte Navarro and Margareth Sofa Varn Guzman, entitled

Analyzing the Influence of a Radio Program Production as a Naturally-Occurring Discourse Activity on the Improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence: A Pilot Study

____________________________________ Pablo Enrique Acosta Acosta, Chairperson Department of Foreign Languages

____________________________________ James Rodolfo Rivera Zambrano Department of Foreign Languages

____________________________________ Richard William Mejia Ramrez Department of Foreign Languages

____________________________________ lvaro Gerardo Fernndez Snchez Department of Social Communication

_______________ Approval Date

DEDICATION I specially dedicate this thesis to my family members who always supported and encouraged me. (Carlos) I specially dedicate this thesis to my parents Pedro Antonio Cern and Rosalba Chavez for supporting me and for be there when I needed them the most, and to all the nice people and friends who gave me strength to finish this project. (Julian) This thesis is especially dedicated to God for blessing me and giving me the opportunity to discover and learn new things every day of my life; to my mom and dad for being always by my side, showing me that my dreams can come true with effort and love. (Leidy) I dedicate this thesis to my family and to all the wonderful people who accompanied and gave me the strength to finish this project. (Liliana) This thesis is dedicated specially to my God since he was always there giving me his support and courage during this process, he was my friend, my light, my shelter, and my guide. When I saw any place to run away, when I just faded and wanted to throw everything away, he was there comforting me, wiping away all of my tears and holding my hand saying me that I was able to. I also dedicate this thesis to him because he touched the heart of many people who were his instruments to encourage me to keep trying and never

ii

give up; He opened doors everywhere and gave me all of that happiness and satisfactions hands full. (Sofa)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We want to thank our dear Chairperson Pablo Enrique Acosta Acosta who kindly decided to work with us in our research project, showing great interest and entire commitment to the development of this study, sharing with us all his experience and knowledge as an educator and researcher. We thank him for his support, engagement, and patience, and for the advice, opinions, and recommendations he gave us to make such an excellent scientific work of our study. We also want to thank our readers James Rodolfo Rivera Zambrano, Richard William Mejia Ramrez, and lvaro Fernndez for the attentive reading of our research project, their valuable advice and recommendations were very helpful for the improvement of our study. Finally, we want to thank Mr. Nestor Velasco from Radio Universidad del Cauca Station for caring about the radio broadcasting details; we appreciate his cooperation, help, and enthusiasm very much. Where would I be without my family? My parents deserve special mention for their inseparable support and motivation. First place my father, Carlos Flrez who is the person that has given me the basis in my life; my mother, Luz Yenny Vidal, the one who sincerely raised me with her caring and gently love. Pablo and Erika Flrez, thanks for being an example to follow in my academic life. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my classmates Sofi, Lili, Leidy, and Mauricio for giving me the opportunity to work whit them,

iv

for sharing their incomparably knowledge and for their patience and friendship. Finally, I would like to thank everybody who was important to the success of this project. (Carlos) I would like to thank to my parents Pedro Antonio Cern and Rosalba Chvez for being there and for loving me. I want to thank my awesome brothers because they as well as my parents always encourage me and support me in everything. To my friends Liliana, Sofia, Carlos, and Leidy for sharing all those awesome moments we spent when we were working on this project. And finally I would like to thank all the wonderful people that play an important role helping us to finish this project. (Julian) I would like to thank God because he has always been my guide; my mother Ana Collazos, my father Ary Jalbin, and my sister Anglica for supporting and loving me as only they can do, and for their help when I needed it the most. Finally, I would like to thank all my dearest friends for being part of this long process and for giving me the best moments of my life. (Leidy) I want to thank to my parents Blanca Nubia Navarro and Jos Constan Solarte for their endless unconditional love and support; to my brother and sisters for being there when I needed them. Thanks to my nieces and nephews for existing and making my life worth living. I also want to thank my friends for being the funniest part of my life. And finally I want to thank Frasquitos, Tablitas, Caloritas, and Espiralitos for all the snacks, the jokes and the laughing during this process. (Liliana) I want to thank to all of those people who were there throughout my degree, their advice, recommendations, and motivation to keep going until now. Thank to my partners

and friends Mauro, Lili, Leidy, and Carlos for being always patient with me, they will stay in my heart forever. Thanks for the jokes, laughs, recordings, and everything that built this friendship. (Sofa)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Approval Dedication Acknowledgments Table of contents List of appendix List of abbreviations ABSTRACT RESUMEN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY CHAPTER 3: THE PROBLEM 3.1 Problem Statement 3.2 Research Questions 3.3 Objectives of the Study 3.3.1 General Objective 3.3.2 Specific objectives I ii iii v viii ix x xi 1 3 6 6 7 8 8 8

CHAPTER 4: CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL, AND CONTEXTUAL 9

vii

FRAMEWORK 4.1 Theoretical Approach 4.2 State of the Art 4.3 Argument 4.4 Naturally Occurring Discourse 4.5 Radio 4.6 English as a Foreign Language EFL 4.7 Pilot Study 4.8 Communicative Competence 4.9 Spoken Interaction Competence CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHOD 5.1 The Research Method 5.2 Community and Sam 5.2.1 Community 5.2.2 Sample 5.3 The Elements of the Study 5.3.1 Hypotheses 5.3.1.1 Working Hypotheses 5.3.1.2 Null Hypotheses 5.3.2 Variables 5.3.2.1 Dependent Variable 5.3.2.2 Independent Variable 9 9 11 12 12 13 14 16 16 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

viii

CHAPTER 6: THE INTERVENTION:METHODOLOGY BASED ON THE ACTION RESEARCH METHOD 6.1 Generalities of the RP 6.2 Methodology 6.2.1 Instruments 6.2.1.1 Participant Observation 6.2.1.2 Narrative Inquiry 6.2.2 Agenda 6.2.2.1 Proposal 6.2.2.1.1 First Activity 6.2.2.1.2 Second Activity 6.2.2.1.3 Third Activity 6.2.2.2 Implementation 6.2.2.3 Analysis 6.2.2.4 Redesign 6.3 Self-Assessment of the RP CHAPTER 7: DATA ANALYSIS 7.1 Pre-test 7.1.1 Pre-test - Task 1 7.1.2 Pre-test - Task 2 7.1.3 Pre-test - Task 3 7.2 Intervention Phase Analysis 29 30 30 30 30 31 21 21 24 26 26 27

ix

7.2.1 Collective Narratives 7.2.1.1 Collective Narrative: Cycle 1 7.2.1.2 Collective Narrative: Cycle 2 7.2.1.3 Collective Narrative: Cycle 3 7.2.1.4 Collective Narrative: Cycle 4 7.2.1.5 Collective Narrative: Cycle 5 7.2.1.6 Collective Narrative: Cycle 6 7.2.2 Analysis of the Process 7.2.2.1 Analysis of the Process: Cycle 1 7.2.2.2 Analysis of the Process: Cycle 2 7.2.2.3 Analysis of the Process: Cycle 3 7.2.2.4 Analysis of the Process: Cycle 4 7.2.2.5 Analysis of the Process: Cycle 5 7.2.2.6 Analysis of the Process: Cycle 6 7.3 Posttest 7.3.1 Posttest - Task 1 7.3.2 Posttest - Task 2 7.3.3 Posttest - Task 3 7.4 Pre-test and Posttest Results and Analysis 7.4.1 Task 1: Pre-test and Posttest Results 7.4.2 Task 1: Analysis of the Pre-test and Posttest Results 7.4.3 Task 2: Pre-test and Posttest Results

7.4.4 Task 2: Analysis of the Pre-test and Posttest Results 7.4.5 Task 3: Pre-test and Posttest Results 7.4.6 Task 3: Analysis of the Pre-test and Posttest Results CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDATIONS WORKS CITED APPENDICES xi xii

xi

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 001: Rating Guide Rubric APPENDIX 002: APPENDIX 003: APPENDIX 004: APPENDIX 005: APPENDIX 006: APPENDIX 007: APPENDIX 008: APPENDIX 009: APPENDIX 010: APPENDIX 011: APPENDIX 012: APPENDIX 013: APPENDIX 014: APPENDIX 015: APPENDIX 016: APPENDIX 017: APPENDIX 0018:

xii

APPENDIX 019 APPENDIX 020: APPENDIX 021: APPENDIX 022: APPENDIX 023: APPENDIX 024: APPENDIX 025: APPENDIX 026

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CC: Communicative Competence CEFR: Common European Framework of Reference EFL: English as a Foreign Language IP: Intervention Phase. MLP: Modern Languages Program NOD: Naturally-Occurring Discourse RP: Radio Program RPP: Radio Program Production SIC: Spoken Interaction Competence

xiv

ABSTRACT

Having the Common European Framework features for proficient language users on spoken aspects as the referent where spoken interaction is defined as the construction of discourse conjointly, the present Quasi-Experimental pilot study focused on determining the influence of a Radio Program Production (RPP) as a Naturally-Occurring Discourse (NOD) activity on the improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC). We hypothesized that the RPP in English could bring] about NOD that empower participants to improve their EFL Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC) level. In order to test our hypothesis, a group, formed by five students from the Modern Languages Program, who were the same researchers, produced a Radio Program (RP) weekly for six weeks. The study was developed in three stages the pre-test stage which determined the initial students Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC) level; the second stage was the implementation of a methodology based on the Action Research Method; and finally the posttest stage which determined the SIC level of the participants after the implementation of the proposed methodology, in order to prove whether or not the hypothesis worked. At the end of the study, the data demonstrated that the participants significantly improved their SIC level by means of the production of a radio program in the target language. Key words: Naturally-Occurring Discourse (NOD), Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC), Radio Program Production (RPP), communicative competence.

xv

RESUMEN

Teniendo al Marco Comn Europeo como referente en relacin a los aspectos de habla de una lengua en usuarios competentes (con alto dominio) -donde se define la interaccin oral como la construccin conjunta de discurso- el siguiente estudio piloto de corte cuasiexperimental se enfoca en determinar la influencia de la produccin de un programa de radio, como una actividad donde el discurso sucede de manera natural, en el mejoramiento de la Competencia de Interaccin Oral (CIO) en ingls como lengua extranjera. La hiptesis plante que la produccin de un programa de radio conduca a un discurso natural permitiendo a los participantes mejorar su nivel de CIO. Para comprobar la hiptesis, un grupo conformado por cinco estudiantes del programa de Lenguas Modernas de la Universidad del Cauca llev a cabo la produccin de un programa radial semanal durante seis semanas. El estudio fue efectuado en tres etapas: la etapa del pre-test la cual permiti conocer el nivel inicial del CIO de los participantes; la segunda etapa consisti en la aplicacin de una metodologa basada en el Mtodo de Investigacin en Accin; y por ltimo, la etapa del post-test, que determin el nivel de CIO de los participantes luego de la implementacin de la metodologa propuesta. Al final de este estudio los datos demostraron que los estudiantes mejoraron significativamente su nivel de CIO a travs de la produccin de un programa radial en ingls.

xvi

1. INTRODUCTION

This research project aimed at determining the influence of a Radio Program Production (RPP) as a Naturally-Occurring Discourse (NOD) activity on the improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC). Knowing that spoken language was a key element in the construction of social relationships and interaction among people when learning a foreign language (Brown and Yule, 1), we intended to look for a different way to improve SIC in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning process. Nevertheless, SIC was more complicated than it seemed to be because it involved more than just pronouncing words; it entailed a team work where it was necessary a collective creation of meaning by the establishment of some degree of common mental context, in real time, according to the Common European Framework of Reference (84). Our experience during four years in the Modern Languages Program EnglishFrench at the University of Cauca showed us that the SIC was underestimated and we considered that the Program did not provide enough opportunities for students to use the English language in real time and context. Being conscious of this problem, we proposed the production of a Radio Program as a suitable space where students could improve their SIC. The radio program required a group effort through a series of meetings and activities in which the participants practiced constantly argumentation, debating, talking, and discussing. Moreover, it implied a constant interaction among participants encouraging

them to be prepared to interact with others, allowing NOD to happen. Finally, it also required the organization of the participants thoughts, ideas, and speech in order to be clear, consistent, and convincing for the audience. In this way the Radio Program Production (RPP) could became a creative, fun, and accessible tool to improve SIC. The study consisted of 3 stages: a pretest, an intervention, and a posttest (see figure 1: Research Phases, page 19). The pre-test and posttest involved the data collection for further analysis and interpretation about the level of the participants regarding their SIC. On the other hand, the intervention stage was a process based on the Action Research Method. This method has been generally applied in academic contexts, used as a research method in specific class situations, and due to its nature we adopted it in order to construct a methodology characterized by the construction of knowledge right through self-reflection and active participation allowing us to create an environment to improve the SIC level. This methodology offered us a cyclic process that consisted of four steps: a proposal of tasks and activities, a way to implement them, an analysis plan of the processes and outcomes, and a re-design scheme that permitted us a constant feedback of the process (See figure 2: Intervention Phase Schema, page 45). These series of steps based on the Action Research methodology played an important role in the improvement of the SIC due to the constant spoken interaction developed among the participants and the construction of awareness about their learning processes. This awareness in particular was the product of the analysis step that allowed the design of a selfassessment moment in which participants told ,wrote and shared with the group their own experiences and perceptions. In this step participants realized about their strengths, weaknesses, problems and opportunities when improving

their SIC level. Moreover, the re-design step encouraged participants to find possible solutions to the problems that emerged in the analysis step and promoted the activities that helped them in the improvement of the SIC level. To sum up, we expected the Production of a Radio program significantly improved the SIC level in the participants; hypothesis we confirmed after analyzing the gathered data from the pretest and posttest.

2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY When teaching and learning in EFL contexts, teachers and students deal with different aims concerned with the spoken form of language. For instance, those related to grammar, phonetics, rhythm, intonation, and even pragmatics and sociolinguistics; and it seems that foreign language learners goals involve being fluent in the target language. The spoken form of language interest is due to the remarkable role of oral speech in human communication, since it helps interaction among people and that is stated by Rebecca Hughes as an innate, universal human capacity and primary language faculty that projects the self into the world (8, 14). In foreign language learning and teaching contexts, it can be seen how speakers adapt themselves and their language choices to the cultural and social patterns of behavior of the target language for successful communication to take place. Moreover, the spoken form of language is fundamentally temporary, dynamic, spontaneous, and context dependent and for this reason, it represents, at some point, the main source of innovation and language change. These changes can be seen in an educational field, for example, when teachers and students look for updated material which contains new idiomatic expressions, words, and grammatical issues developed at the level of the speech. Nowadays, this particular characteristic not only becomes a key feature that concerns foreign language learners about learning the spoken form of language but also is closely related to the

influence of new media trends such as e-mail, Twitter, and text messages on mobile phones that become an important element in the speed change of a language. Taking into account the importance of some characteristics of the spoken form of language presented above, we could realize that the relevance of the study of the spoken competence in human communication and particularly foreign language learning contexts consisted on establishing the kind of interpersonal and interactive strategies we had to develop to improve the Spoken Interaction Competence SIC, which is the construction of meaning through discourse. As the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) states, the spoken interaction is the oral communication given between two or more interlocutors, where they act as speakers and listeners alternatively, in which it is necessary the construction of conversational discourse in a conjoined way through the negotiation of meaning, following interactive strategies such us co-operation, mutual understanding, and asking for clarification (73). In order to construct a proper environment for spoken interaction to take place, we believe that the RPP is a significant element that encourages a Naturally-Occurring Discourse (NOD) when people orally interact, since the production of a RP involves interaction among the producers (Luis Lpez Forero, 318). The significance of our proposal lied in the fact that the collaboration is not reduced only to the strictly technical aspect but it also implies the creation of steps that demands constant spoken interaction such as reunions, debates, searching for information on the web, investigation, critical debates, and the need to cooperate and decide about the information that is managed in the RPP. In this

way, EFL learners were involved in a dynamic learning process that let them to appropriate the target language in a real context. Besides, the implementation of a methodology based on the Action Research Method allowed us to construct knowledge and awareness of the process through reflection and active participation in the RPP and the self-assessment through the implementation of a continuous cyclic process. This was precisely one of the most outstanding aspects of this research, because of the importance of self-assessment as a metacognitive exercise that permits the students to assimilate their knowledge in a significant way. Finally, this proposal allowed us to be immersed in an environment that encouraged real time communication, providing contextualized material, active participation in the formulation of activities and meaningful learning when developing a RPP that intended to improve the SIC of foreign language learners in EFL contexts. Besides, the Methodology became an innovative way of learning and teaching the spoken form of a language that could be considered one of the main aims when learning a foreign language.

3. THE PROBLEM This chapter states the problem we encountered when trying to construct wellstructured discourse conjointly in the exercise of interaction. It also presents the research question and the objectives of the study, both general and specific. 3.1 Problem Statement Regarding the importance of the spoken language, considered as the primary form of language (Rebecca Hughes, 13), we believed that the Modern Languages Program English-French from the University of Cauca did not provide us enough opportunities to improve our SIC level. Some of those opportunities were limited to the academic context such as interventions in the classroom, role plays and presentations. However, according to our personal experiences most of the time we felt under pressure when we tried to memorize and hence we could not produce a natural discourse. Some role play activities were intended to allow interaction between students according to the curriculum but we felt that these activities did not help us improve our SIC. These experiences showed that we needed different opportunities characterized by interaction in real time in order to permit us to acquire spontaneity and fluency, making our speech more natural and authentic. We as current students and future EFL teachers think that the SIC is a key aspect when teaching and learning English. It is essential for the teacher to know in order to

teach a foreign language how the individuals of that determined culture act and react towards different interactional contextual situations. Consequently, we believe that NOD and SIC play an important role to students and teachers when trying to learn or teach the spoken form of language in EFL contexts. 3.2 Research Question How does the Radio Program Production as a Naturally-Occurring Discourse activity influence on the improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence? Objectives of the Study 3.2.1 General Objective To determine the influence of a Radio Program Production as a NaturallyOccurring Discourse activity on the improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence. 3.2.2 Specific Objectives To design a Methodology that allowed us to use English while producing a Radio Program in English. To produce a radio Program in English in order to improve our EFL Spoken Interaction Competence. To relate the Methodology we designed with the improvement of our EFL Spoken Interaction Competence.

4. STATE OF THE ART AND CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL, AND CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK This chapter deals with the theoretical and contextual concerns that are essential for the support, clarification, and argumentation of the core concepts of this study. In that way we provide the theoretical bases that guided this research project. 4.1 Theoretical Approach This research project was framed in the constructivism approach which emphasizes on the primacy of each individuals construction of reality arguing that all human beings construct their own version of reality, and therefore multiple contrasting ways of knowing and describing are equally legitimate (Brown, 11). Two of the emblematic researchers of this school of thought differ in the extent to which each emphasizes social context. Piaget thought that social interaction only was a trigger to the cognitive development of predetermined stages in time, but this was, at the end, a solitary act (Brown, 11). On the contrary, Vygotsky said that social interaction was foundational in cognitive development (Brown, 11). Even when there is no way to affirm if a single paradigm or theory is right or wrong, we believe that this research project had a social constructivist approach due to the nature of the proposal which looked for an improvement of the Spoken Interaction Competence level through the production of a Radio Program.

Regarding the nature of our research, we also included metacognition into the theoretical framework in order to support the methodology we wanted to implement. Metacognition is the ability to self-regulate our own learning it means to plan and apply different strategies to learn according to the situation. It also involves controlling and evaluating the learning process in order to detect possible difficulties to finally modify our performances (Son and Schwartz, 16). In general researchers have held the notion that people do have an ability to look at their cognitions and make somewhat accurate assessments about them (Son and Schwartz, 19). Consequently, in our research we pretended to reach a level of consciousness of our own learning process through personal and group reflections and assessments for further modifications of the implemented learning strategies related to the SIC. At the end of the project we were able to regulate the way we learnt by a metacognitive exercise that permitted us to be conscious of our strengths and weaknesses in the strategies we used to learn EFL. 4.2 State of the art One of the previous research projects that helped us to build an idea of a RP proposal is Jvenes, Radio y Ciudadana1 by Alexander Buenda (Buenda, ). This research project in particular encompassed three thematic areas: the young people, the radio, and the city. Besides, it tried to explore the interrelations that occur between those three components, to comprehend what happens when young people design a radio program for young people, and to test how the producers of radio programs assume the interaction in different contexts with the young people and the city. We considered that although this
1

Youngsters, Radio and Citizenship.

10

research did not deal with teaching and learning a foreign language, it gave us a different perspective about what a radio program was and its importance as a mass media. Regarding the lack of experience in the production of a radio program, Radio Ciudadana2 constituted a guide for producing our radio program (Ministerio de Cultura, 2010). It gave us a general view related to the systematization of the activities performed by the participants during the Intervention Phase (IP) (the creation of a schedule for searching, sharing, organizing ideas and information). Moreover, this book helped us to understand the process of technical issues such as writing scripts, choosing music and special sound effects, among others. For supporting our proposal, we presented some previous experiences about the use of radio in the improvement of the proficiency of EFL learners. The first one, ESL Radio: Innovations in the application of ICT to the learner-centered curriculum, was a project that looked for maximizing the language learning opportunities through a radio program. This experience showed us that a radio program could be used as a useful tool for the improvement of the EFL competences. Besides, the experience gave us the idea of putting the radio program online instead of broadcast it on a traditional radio station, taking into account that Internet is a more accessible media not only for the producers but also for the listeners. Another experience we took into account was the work done by one of our professors, which consisted of a radio program using only the English language for communicating (Acosta, 2004). This program was broadcasted at the Radio Universidad
2

Citizen Radio

11

del Cauca station, and it was called Magic Time. This experience, closer to our context, showed us that it was possible to make a radio program in a foreign language, with foreign nonnative language speakers that could amuse not only the audience but also the producers by presenting an attractive, fresh, and varied format. In this way these previous experiences became an important referent in the construction of our research proposal. 4.3 Argument An argument is the way people present a spoken or written opinion mainly for persuading. According to Bruce Stirling (Stirling, 2) there are two types of arguments: the first one is the Personal Opinion Argument used for the purpose of persuading an audience and the second one is called Fact Based Argument used for informing by presenting facts. An argument must be coherent, clear and logic. So the person could demonstrate their English language proficiency. 4.4 Naturally Occurring Discourse NOD refers to the discourse that has not been affected by the interests and formulations of the researcher (Acosta, 39). The data from NOD allows researchers to obtain more valid and reliable results, showing a realistic use of the language with probably more spontaneous occurrences. The data collected from NOD is also useful for its reliability, validity, and naturalness.3 In this case, this type of discourse can be obtained through interaction strategies that we carried out during the production of our RP. AGREGAR COMMENT SOBRE CUANDO VA RADIO `PROGRAM Y CUANDO RP
3

In our specific case, this type of discourse could be obtained through interaction strategies that we, as participant-researchers, carried out during the weekly activities of the Intervention Phase

12

One of the characteristics of NOD is that it only exists for a moment and for that reason it is hard for a researcher to properly study the discourse produced. In this research, the fact that the radio programs were taped helped to guarantee the authenticity of the spoken data collected showing the real interactions among the members of the group. According to Acosta (Acosta, 40) there is another problem when working with NOD is if the recorded material can guarantee the fidelity of the discourse without modifying any of its parts or without missing the context and significant sections for the particular phenomenon under investigation. For that reason, the Radio Program was not edited so the naturalness of the participants speech could be kept. On the other hand, recording NOD could represent a threat to the spontaneity and naturalness of the participants discourse. Nevertheless, this problem can be lessened in certain conditions: first, if the speakers become accustomed to the recording; second, when participants are actively involved in a relatively long activity tend to forget that their discourse is being taped; and third, if the participants get used to each other, the discourse flows more spontaneously. In order to solve this problem when working with NOD, we had six weeks to get accustomed to the RP weekly recording sessions. As well, we were used to each other because of the long worked we developed together in order to carry out this research project. 4.5 Radio Radio is a mass media that permits integration between producers and the society so that an informative dynamics among radio listeners can be made possible. Planning and

13

preparation are required to achieve a radio broadcast that is defined as a group of emission techniques of hertzian waves that allow words and sound transmission (Romo Gil, 23). An important element of the production of a radio program has to do with the group work that is involved during the early stages of the creative process. This team-oriented production integrates the development of the technical aspects such as audio editing and the use of digital audio effects, and the construction of sessions for communication and expression of ideas. During the radio production process the participants are immersed into a kind of work that requires, necessarily, other people collaboration. This fact can be applied to any kind of radio product, and the collaboration is not just reduced to the strictly technical aspect but, in this case, it implies possible modifications over the essence of the created ideas (Lpez Forero, 318). 4.6 English as a Foreign Language English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is a term used to denote the process of teaching and learning English in environments where the language of the community and the school is not English. It is usually used for the purposes of academic advancement, career advancement, and traveling abroad. EFL is usually learned in environments where the language of the community and the school is not English. 4.7 Pilot Study

14

A pilot study is a mini version of a full scale study or a trial done in preparation of a complete study. It is also called a feasibility study. It can also be a specific pretesting of research instruments, including questionnaires or interview schedules. The general goal of a pilot study is to provide information, which can contribute to the success of the research project as a whole. The pilot study will thus follow after the researcher has a clear vision of the research topic and questions, techniques and methods, which will be applied and how the research schedule will look like. Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight, 1997:121, cited by Calitz, 256, 257) state that in a pilot study the researcher tries out all the research techniques and methods they have in mind to see how well they will work in practice. If necessary it can still be adapted and modified accordingly. Taking into account the previous information, our research fitted into the pilot study definition because of the nature of our work and also because we pretended it to be developed into some more extensive research for whoever wanted to continue with this topic. 4.8 Communicative Competence When we talk about communication we refer to something that, as Thao L says, permeates virtually in all human interaction activities (L, 1). It is a complex process not only cognitive but also social and emotional since it deals with the way we think and feel, and how we express those thoughts and feelings. Besides, in communication, language use involves, according to the Common European Framework, the actions performed by persons who as individuals and social agents develop a range of competences (Common

15

European Framework, 9). Those competences can be general and particularly communicative language competences. Ellis defines the Communicative Competence (CC) as The knowledge that users of a language have internalized to enable them to understand and produce messages in the language; it encompasses linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic components. Linguistics components embrace a dimension of language as a system including phonological, lexical, and syntactical knowledge. Sociolinguistics competences involve the sociocultural conditions of language use, also known as social conventions, that strictly affects all language communication between representatives of different cultures (Ellis, 13). In this research project, the categories described in the Communicative Competence were considered in the observation and analysis of the spoken data and the learning processes internalized by the participants-researches in the RRP as a NOD activity that helped the improvement of the SIC level. 4.9 Spoken Interaction Language is a system that can be used in different ways to communicate a reality, a desire, a feeling about anything. It can be oral, written or gestural and it constitutes a system through which people can express themselves. Depending on the intention of the speaker language has different functions, being one of them described by Brown and Yule as transactional when language is used basically to provide information. (Brown and Yule, 1) The other function is interactional related to the function involved in expressing social

16

relation and personal attitudes (Brown and Yule, 1). The latter, according to some researchers, is considered a necessary factor that enables social relationships to take place. The spoken form of language that includes an interactional function is more complicated than it seems at first, and involves more than just pronouncing words (Orwig, 1998, web). According to the Common European Framework of Reference (73) spoken interaction is the oral communication given between two or more interlocutors, where they act as speakers and listeners alternatively, in which it is necessary the construction of conversational discourse in a conjoined way through the negotiation of meaning following the co-operative principle. Spoken interaction entails the collective creation of meaning by the establishment of some degree of common mental context, in real time (Common European Frame of Reference, 84) and face to face communication. Hence the importance of the spoken interaction, since it requires the constant use of interactive strategies in order to permit a process of socialization in which a common mental context is constructed. As for the interactive strategies used during the spoken interaction, the Common European Framework of Reference (Common European Frame of Reference, 222) describes them as: Taking the floor when language users adopt turn taking strategies in order to obtain the discourse initiate; Co-operating interpersonal related to the collaboration in the task and how to keep the discussion on course; Co-operating ideational: when helping mutual understanding and maintain a focused approach to the task at hand, and finally Asking for clarification. Some examples of interactive activities

17

include: casual conversations, formal and informal discussions, debates, negotiations, and practical goal-oriented co-operations, among others. These activities were useful during the Intervention Phase (described in chapter 6 of this document) in order to establish the different ways in which every one of us interacted as a member of the RPP group. For further information see Appendix

18

5. RESEARCH METHOD The role of the research method is to create a systematic inquiry from framing the research question to finally analyzing and reporting the data collected in order to revise or discover consequences, facts, causes, and further applications of the discoveries. This chapter gives a concrete idea of the research method we implemented to carry out the study. It shows the reason why the Quasi-Experimental design was adopted. At the end of this chapter we present the elements of the study. 5.1 The Research Method Our research project aimed at analyzing the influence of a radio Program as a Naturally-Occurring Discourse (NOD) activity on the improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC) level. The philosophic reference for this study was the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) due to its international importance and validity. That was a document developed by European researchers who intended to improve the language teaching and learning processes and also the ways how people from their different countries communicated among them. This research was framed in a quasi-experimental design in which the experimental group played the role of participants and researchers. The study consisted of 3 phases: pretest, the intervention, and the posttest (See Figure 1: Research Phases, page 19). The pretest and posttest involved data collection for the further analysis and interpretation of the obtained information. For this reason it was imperative to have a valid and reliable test

19

which measured the initial and final level of the participants regarding the SIC level. Thus, the research project adapted the speaking rubrics taken from the TOELF international test 2010; and it also adopted the concept of the SIC given by the CEFR. (See Appendix 001: Rating Guide Rubric).

Figure 1: Research Phases The pre-test consisted in 3 tasks in which we had to test our capacity of argumentation, interaction, to make questions, to take the floor, to follow others ideas, to correct mistakes, etc. The first task consisted on a meeting, in which we were giving a hypothetical problematic situation that we had to analyze individually taking into account all the situation aspects, then we had to socialize our ideas and finally we tried to get to an agreement. The second task was very similar to the first one differing only on the nature of the topic given because now it was a real problematic situation. And the last task we were giving a picture in which we had to analyze, socialize and final conclude our ideas about

20

the possible meaning of the picture. The three tasks had duration of one hour. The posttest was the same in order to be able to contrast our performance before and after the IP. After the intervention phase, we implemented the posttest, using the rubrics mentioned before, which threw statistical data, in order to contrast the initial and final impressions for statistical analysis (descriptive statistics) and the interpretation of the results. (See Appendix 001: Rating Guide Rubric.) 5.2 Community and Sample 5.2.1 Community

Our research emphasized on the Modern Languages Program (MLP) since it was the Institution where we were carrying out our professional studies and we cared about the level of the students SIC. The MLP is part of the Humanities and Social Sciences School of the University of Cauca and has a trajectory of thirty-nine years with a laborious commitment to students and the society. The education, investigation, qualification, and extension activities of the MLP follow the needed standards asked for the University of Cauca whose main task is the social and professional development of students through investigations that helps them construct a specific knowledge and subsequent improvement in society. The MLP has seventeen teachers, five French teachers and eight English teachers; two French native speakers, and one native English speaker. It also has around one hundred and ninety-eight students, and once a year the Program welcome fifty fresh students.

21

5.2.2

Sample

The sample for this research work consisted of the same researchers of the project. We were five participants, two men and three women between 22 and 35 years old. We were part of the one hundred and ninety-eight MLP students at the University of Cauca. We were senior students who were working in our final research project. All of us lived permanently in Popayn in different neighborhoods; although one of us comes from San Agustin Huila a town located about one hundred and sixty kilometers from Popayn. All of us had had previous experience teaching EFL in different private and public institutions. Only one of us had experience on radio, since she studied Social Communications at the University of Cauca, but the rest of us did not have previous experience on RPP. 5.3 The Elements of the Study 5.3.1 Hypotheses

5.3.1.1 Working Hypothesis The production of a Radio Program in English brought about Naturally-Occurring Discourse that empowered participants to improve their EFL Spoken Interaction Competence. 5.3.1.2 Null Hypothesis The production of a Radio Program in English DID NOT bring about NaturallyOccurring Discourse that empowered participants to improve their EFL Spoken Interaction Competence.

22

5.3.2

Variables

5.3.2.1 Dependent Variable The improvement of the EFL Spoken Interaction Competence 5.3.2.2 Independent Variable The Naturally-Occurring Discourse that is brought about by the production of a Radio Program in English.

23

6. THE INTERVENTION: METHODOLOGY BASED ON ACTION RESEARCH METHOD

In this part we present to the reader an idea of our radio Programs and describe the different aspects of the production and implementation of our methodology taking into account every element that took part of it. 6.1 Generalities of the RP The program was born from the idea of five students of creating a RP in English for the community of the Modern Language Program. It ended up being a proposal for a research directed towards our own improvement of the Spoken Interaction Competence. This research allowed us to play both roles as investigators and participants at the same time. We saw that the communicative competence presented during the production of the RP was a practical, experimental, and agreeable experience that could help us improve our SIC level. The RP was totally in English; it was presented in a magazine format, with a host and four co-hosts that talked about a different topic every week, and was aimed to a variety of young people (ages, professions and personal interests). The RPs name was Natural Waves and it was divided in three sections. The first and second sections showed a

24

discussion about the main topic in which we presented the generalities of the topic and developed a question related to it. Therefore almost all the times we assumed different positions and tried to defend them in order to permit the audience to arrive at their own conclusions. The third section was somehow more academic, because in it we talked about vocabulary that we had used during the previous sections or about vocabulary that was closely related with the topic. In general the RPP pressured us to work hard in order to achieve two main goals: give the best RP to the public, and improve our SIC in the process of producing the RP. We expected to arrive to those goals by carrying out different activities that let us handle the topics, the technical aspects and also aspects related with the SIC such as argumentation, taking the floor, and language use, among others (see Appendix 001 Rating Guide Rubric). The description of one of the RPs is presented in Table 1: Radio Program Script. Radio Program Script - Natural Waves Fxs (special effects) of a modem and a radio station tuning. Music. Different voices: one, two, three, four, five. A woman says: Welcome to Natural Waves. A man says: One topic, five ways. Music fades out. 20 sec. Love dont let me go David Guetta Music Moderator For around two minutes the main moderator greets and presents the whole radio Program including the sections and songs about to play. after the first interaction, the musical interlude turns up for 5 seconds fading out. After the first interaction, the musical interlude turns up for 5 seconds fading Music out. Chill out music up and down and a woman says: The Lounge The Lounge Bumper First Liner Moderator The moderator presents the main agenda item. The participants interventions start in a conversational style. This section lasts for about 10 minutes. A musical theme starts to play for about one and a half minute. Musical

25

interlude The Nerdy Classical music up and down and a man says The Nerdy Section music fades out Section Bumper Moderator The moderator invites the participants to submit or show unknown words used during the previous part. This lasts for 6 minutes. Eventually, the moderator concludes the Program and invites the listeners to an upcoming issue. Fxs of a modem and a radio station tuning. Music. Different voices: five, Last four, three, two, one. This was Natural Waves. A man says: One topic, five Liner ways. Music fades out. 20 sec.

Table 1: Radio Program Script The Program began with a 20 seconds liner; when it finished a musical interlude began for the introduction for about 15 seconds and it faded out. For around two minutes the main moderator (who changed each week) greeted and presented the whole radio Program including the sections and songs playing. After the first interaction, the musical interlude turned up for 5 seconds and then, faded out. The first section bumper called The Lounge entered and after it finished, the moderator presented the main agenda item. The participants interventions started in a conversational style. This section lasted for about 10 minutes. Then, the first section finished and a musical theme started to play for about one and a half minute. Another bumper announced the second section called The Nerdy Section, and the moderator invitedthe participants to submit or show unknown words used during the previous part. This lasted for 6 minutes. Eventually, the moderator concluded the program and invited the listeners to an upcoming show. The program ended with the last liner fading out.

26

Our

radio

program

was

online

and

could

be

tuned

on

http://www.wix.com/flushedshame/radioproject permanently. Every week during six weeks we, five students from the Modern Language Program got together to present a different experience in creating radio and, at the same time, to enhance and improve our SIC level. The aim was to do a quality product, so the listeners wanted to hear the program again. The audience that listened to radio stations online could find a space where a lot of global content topics were treated in an amusing but professional way. For that reason, our work team was committed to investigate about the topics and also about the radio program production process. The local context was Popayn and the global context was the whole world since the Radio Program was broadcasted online. The program was recorded at one of the studios from the University of Cauca radio station. The inquiry and producer team was composed by five students. The participants from the team carried out all the needed functions for a Radio Program Production (moderator, presenters, investigators, participants), these roles rotated from one participant to another allowing them to be constantly active in the RPP. The whole team created an agreeable environment during the RPP which was reflected in the final product every week, making it felt a good experience for the listeners. 6.2 Methodology As we already stated in chapter 5, this research project had three moments (pretest, intervention, and posttest). In this section we describe the second moment called the Intervention Phase (IP). The IP included a methodology based on the Action Research

27

Method. That methodology was characterized by the construction of knowledge right through reflection and active participation. The methodology we used for this research was the Action Research Method. This methodology encompassed two functions: the development of a RPP and the self assessment through cycles. As seen in Chart 3, each cycle consisted of four steps that were developed through meetings: 1) proposal, 2) implementation, 3) analysis and 4) re-design.

Figure 2: Intervention Phase Schema (steps) The proposal was the starting point of each cycle; in this step we decided the main topic of the program, and the activities that were carried out during the pre-production4 of the RP. The following were some of the interactive activities that we took into account,

Preproduction is the first stage before the actual production. Here, every product is prepared. It is right before the recording of the product, in this case, the radio program

28

proposed by the CEFR in order to improve the SIC: debates, forums, interviews, conversations formal or informal, negotiation and co-planning. In the implementation step, the recording of the RP was executed, reflecting the work done during the proposal. The RP was recorded live and uploaded online on a webpage, created by the group. The analysis step involved both the evaluation of the RP produced and our selfassessment regarding the SIC. Here, we analyzed whether the proposed interactive activities helped improve our SIC or not. In order to do this, we used the adapted rubrics of the pre-tests and posttests, as a validated instrument of measurement and analysis. The observations from both the cycles and the program were collected in a log for further analysis. It was during this moment when we carried out the metacognitive exercise. The last step was the re-design. Taking into account the RP analysis and the selfassessment results we reconsidered the activities and proposed topics for the next cycle. There were six cycles that enriched the understanding of the data analysis and the final findings by clarifying the different activities of the experience. It also helped us construct awareness of the processes we had gone through. 6.2.1 Instruments

6.2.1.1 Participant Observation We used this instrument because it permitted us to hear, see, and begin to experiment reality; it also offered the opportunity to learn directly from our own experience, providing new opportunities to get closer to unknown aspects of the research.

29

In our case, we were not only the researchers but also the participants in the research so we had to play those two roles at the same time. As participants, we were evaluated with the pretest and the posttest. During the intervention, we developed a RPP by implementing the methodology based on the Action Research Method. Besides, as researchers, we analyzed the results of the pre and posttest and also the radio program recording every week. 6.2.1.2 Narrative Inquiry Narrative inquiry is an interdisciplinary method which assumes that people construct their realities through narrating their stories (Qualitative Inquiry, 116). This method values the signs, the symbols, and the expression of feelings in language (Qualitative Inquiry, 116) and it allows validate the way how the narrator constructs meaning. In this case, where we were researchers and participants, we used this instrument when we wrote our experiences during the project and after finishing it. This helped us to analyze the individual and group process by collecting the reflections and perceptions, related to the intended SIC improvement during the IP of the research project. 6.2.2 Agenda

The main purpose of the RPP as a NOD activity was to improve our EFL SIC level. In that sense, we considered that it could be achieved by interacting and communicating all the time in the target language. For that reason we planned to meet four times per week with the following steps which can be eventually modified partially or completely if we

30

considered it necessary for the improvement of our process and/or our inquiry. Each meeting or step was interrelated with one interactive activity which helped us to construct conjointly conversational discourse improving, thus, our SIC. See Table 2: Agenda and Self-Assessment Schedule.

31

Hour 8:00

AGENDA AND SELF-ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Implementation 8:00-9:00 am Recording Analysis 8:00-10:00 am Analyzing the Radio Program Activity 1 8:00-9:00 am Informal Discussion Self assessment of the RPP Activity 2 10:00-11:00 am Debate

Friday

9:00

Self-assesment of the RPP

10:00 Redesign 10:00-12:00 m Re-structuring the preproduction activities 11:00

Activity 3 10:00-11:00 am Final discussion /organizing details Selfassessment of the RPP

Self assessment of the RPP Table 2: Agenda and Self-Assessment schedule 6.2.2.1 Proposal

This step had three activities that were held during the week. The activities are described below: 6.2.2.1.1 First activity

This first activity had place on Wednesdays from 8:00 am to 9:00 am; it was framed as an informal discussion, in this meeting we pretended to share information about the topic we previously chose. We investigated in order to acquire the information and the

32

vocabulary related to the topic. We talked the whole time in English. In this meeting we clarified the ideas and concepts we wanted to discuss in the RP although it was not imperative to choose them in this first meeting. 6.2.2.1.2 Second Activity

The meeting was done on Thursdays from 10:00 am to 11:00 am. We had a debate. It could be formal or informal depending on the topic. The topic was specific. Each participant had to have ideas so that we could defend our points of view, positions, and opinions. We practiced our capacity of argumentation, articulating speech in a coherent, clear, and elaborate way. This meeting ended up with the final statement we discussed in the radio program. 6.2.2.1.3 Third activity

This meeting was on Friday from 10:00 am to 11:00 am. Since we already had the final statement for the RP each participant had to have a clear position about the topic. It included the use of specific vocabulary, the ability of discussing and arguing through the whole meeting. The participants had to have the ability to understand, express and interpret concepts, thoughts and feelings related to the topic. 6.2.2.2 Implementation We recorded the Radio Program on Monday from 8:00 am to 9:00 am in one of the recording studios from the University of Cauca. The program was recorded live and

33

broadcasted

on

internet.

The

program

could

be

heard

at

http://www.wix.com/flushedshame/radioproject. 6.2.2.3 Analysis The analysis was held on Tuesdays from 8:00 am to 10:00 am. We listened to the Radio Program and reflected about the work done. In this step we analyzed how the participants interact with each other in an individual and group form and if the activities planned on the proposal helped us improve our SIC. 6.2.2.4 Redesign The redesign was on Tuesday from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. taking into account the results from the analysis; we re-structured the activities of the proposal for a new cycle. The redesign implied a constant change of the activities or strategies that helped us improved our SIC during the proposal step. During this step we chose the topic and the most pertinent music that fit it. 6.3 Self-Assessment of the RP This stage was based on the Methodology created from action research method. During this last task we pretend to have the evaluation of the recorded radio program so that we could improve or change thing for the next agenda; this space was held in different schedules during the week. It was also a complement of the activities carried out in the agenda. See Table 2: Agenda and Self-assessment Schedule, page 31).

34

Self-assessment 1: on Mondays from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. During this meeting we listened, what we did on the radio program. On Wednesdays from 9:00 am to 10:00 am and Thursdays and Fridays from 11:00 am to 12:00 am we wrote and socialized the process we were implementing in the RP.

35

7. DATA ANALYSIS This chapter presents the analysis of the data obtained during the process by means of recordings from the pretest analyzed into three tasks, through the implementation stage divided into six cycles until the posttest also analyzed into three tasks. 7.1 Pre-test 7.1.1 Task 1

Task 1 consisted of an hour meeting divided in three parts. In this task we were given a hypothetical problematic situation that we had to analyze individually taking into account all the situation aspects. After doing that we socialized our ideas expressing/telling our arguments, trying to defend them and forcing our partners to do the same. Finally we tried to get to a common agreement. 7.1.2 Task 2

The second task was very similar to the first one (one hour meeting, divided in three parts) differing only on the nature of the topic because in this one the participants were given a problematic situation taken from a real context. In this case we were supposed to use previous knowledge since the situation provided a trendy and common topic. 7.1.3 Task 3

The third task was also a one hour meeting with three different activities. For this task we were given a picture that we had to analyze, socialize, and conclude our ideas about the possible meaning of the picture. The first part of the task was to give an individual idea

36

of what the image meant for every one of us. Then we proceeded socialize our thoughts about it, and finally we had to arrive to some agreements related to the meaning of the image. 7.2 IMPLEMENTATION STAGE: METHODOLOGY 7.2.1 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVES

During the Intervention Phase (IP) we wrote the memories of what we felt using the instrument of narrative inquiry because we felt the need to put into written words, the feelings, sensations and thoughts about our process along the research project. This reflective exercise was done individually, but we decided to put it together in order to arrive to a group identity. Following are the collective narratives. 7.2.1.1 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVE - CYCLE 1 After the socialization of every participants personal reflections, we can say, as a group, that one of the most important aspects that affected our performance during the recording of Natural Waves was the topic. For the first program we decided to talk about disability/disabled people but the truth is we were never really attached to that topic so it became a problem because it generated a lack of interest that was shown in the RP. Some of us just did not do the activities we had planned for the pre production week such as reading about the topic in order to have clear information to share with the group and with the audience. And we could notice that when we are not ready to talk about some particular issue we remain silent or we say rare things when we participate. So, if we are not well prepared, our ideas are not going to be clear, not well structured and not well organized. If

37

we had been really engaged to the RPP, our lexicon would have been increased but it did not. Considering that the topic was not polemic, there was not any possibility to discuss and show different points of view, because during the RP the whole group agreed on everything said. That obviously affected the interaction because it seemed that every member of the group was trying to throw in their two cents without trying to construct a collective discourse, which was what we pretended. Other aspect that was important for us in this collective perception was that most of us spoke very slowly and used a lot of fillers especially when we could not find the required word at certain moment and we did not want to say a wrong word. This aspect affected the fluency of our speech. When trying to find a reason for this problem we agreed that it was a low self confidence issue because we were afraid of making a mistake when we were talking. We also found some difficulties when trying to use some vocabulary related to the radio production and at the end we forgot that we had an audience and that we should talk to them instead of talking to ourselves. This aspect was important since we were making a radio program that would be heard by a lot of people. Finally, we arrived to some conclusions about our performance in this first broadcast of Natural Waves. The first one was related to the topic which, we thought, must be attractive to us; it must be appealing so we could feel comfortable when developing the

38

activities of the pre-production. The topic also should be not only interesting but polemic in order to give us the chance to adopt different positions to defend in front of the others. We should prepare some basic material to have something to say in the recording of the radio program because if we did not know anything about the topic then we were not going to have anything to say about it and we ended up saying things with no sense; and that was not the idea because we were producing a radio program for the audience not only for our group. Related to the self-confidence, we must let our fears aside when we are speaking in public because a low self-confidence can make us speak slower and use a lot of fillers when there is no need. We must believe in ourselves and talk, it does not matter if we are wrong or not, because practicing is the only way to improve our spoken interaction. And finally, regarding the aspect of the radio production vocabulary, we must research about it in order to become more familiar with the media we are working on. 7.2.1.2 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVE - CYCLE 2 The most important element in this program was selection of the topic. It was closest to us, updated and interesting so the investigation for every one of us was motivating and it helped us to have more clear and organize ideas about the things to say; Taking this into account our participations improved and the discourse was a little more clear and sustained it made this program better than the previous one.

39

Another important aspect was that that for the first time, we were aware of the audience and time and the fact of realizing that we were being listened added a positive pressure; This pressure enriches our participations and the production of discourse in a clear and organized way. As a solution we planned to participate actively in the choice of the topic because it had to be always interesting and polemic, it could help us to have more clear ideas and the audience could find in our program an enjoyable thing to listen. 7.2.1.3 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVE - CYCLE 3 After two weeks of being exposed to the radio program production, this time we all felt comfortable in the radio studio, we felt relaxed and the pressure sensation we felt at the beginning is now decreasing, the choice of the topic collectively encourages us to read and document about t gave us self-confidence when doing the interventions there was a generalize sensation of fluidity increase, we are less afraid of commit mistakes since we have learn how to apply in subtle way how to use different strategies, like giving examples of the unknown word or just choosing synonymic words. We realize that a previous preparation is important when discussing a topic in the radio program since it provides us with grammatical specific structures and vocabulary that spin around the topic. The self-assessment has helped us to get consciousness about our speech and also with the projection we have by the microphones. It has helped us to determine some aspects that can or must be improved for example, the excessive use of fillers and silences, now we are aware that it reduces comprehension and interest of the listener, we are working hard to improve it, another thing is the type of intervention we have, some of us are trying to have

40

better and concise interventions including argumentation, we are trying to go beyond isolated opinions. For the next program we have to find something not really polemic but something more related to our likes no so heavy. We agreed also that previous reading increase our level of argumentation, fluidity and self-confidence, the lack of it shows problems during interventions. 7.2.1.4 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVE - CYCLE 4 We realized that the topic is really important when trying to interact with others. The topic was Movies based on books that was really fun and appealing to everyone in the group allowing us to talk more, to talk from our experiences, to felt relax and more confidence when trying to speak. The topic allows us to have our ideas clear and help us to be more clear and consistent during the interventions. We could notice that we all talk more than we used to in the other programs. One of the other important things was that all of us didnt read about the topic, and that was why we felt stuck at some points of the interventions. At the end we did some changes for the next program; the topic must be related more about our personal interest because when we have the chance to talk about things we like, we think our speech is more fluent. We also get to the conclusion that we need to be more conscious about the importance of reading more about the topic, because that will help us improve our vocabulary, and also to be surer about things we are going to say. 7.2.1.5 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVE - CYCLE 5

41

In this opportunity the personal and group reflections about the RP were centered in the feelings of confidence and security, and the good attitude raised during the dialogue held among the participants. Which was the reason for these feelings? Words such as relaxed, familiar and appealing were constantly used to describe the feelings rose towards the theme discussed. This pre-disposition invited us to construct a likewise relaxed, familiar and appealing atmosphere even when discussing our different points of view. Thus, we could identify again that the topic is a fundamental factor when trying to encourage a more active and natural participation. In this case in particular, we felt identified enough to create a sense of appropriateness that led us to produce a more relaxed discourse and a more active giving and proposing ideas. Moreover, another aspect that influenced the sensation of nervousness and security in our group was the same process or experience. We had heard that in every broadcast of the RPs, we were creating confidence not only in the technical issues of a radio program production but also in the production of a discourse and the way how we interact with each other in a foreign language. We realized at the end that the changes we had have made so far were important since we could see and feel that we were improving our level of interaction. We decided then that for the next program it had to be a more controversial topic, allowing us to even speak more and interact more than we had done so far in the other programs. 7.2.1.6 COLLECTIVE NARRATIVE - CYCLE 6

42

The last program gave us the chance to work with an unplanned topic that was Politics and Terrorism, according to the reality or our country. Unfortunately the topic was not appealing enough for some of us so it generated some difficulties during the recording of the radio program. Again, we felt that the topic was an important issue not only because the attractiveness of a topic help us to talk more but because if it is polemic, it enriches the discussion. When a topic offers the possibility to the participants to take sides the discussion is supposed to be more interesting, because everyone can give arguments trying to defend their positions and trying to defeat others (las posiciones de los dems). However, we must recognize that in this opportunity the topic was polemic but we, as a group, were not able to take sides and obviously we could not defend the positions we did not take. Somehow we failed because our speeches were superficial and even when there were some attempts to generated discussion, we could not handle it and we ended up jumping from one idea to another without giving a clear idea of what we wanted to say. Another possible explanation for this difficulty was that the topic could be restrictive, it means that we could not affirm a lot of the things we were saying and everything was based on our beliefs not in actual facts. Obviously, that restricted our discourse and ability to argument and contra argument. This time we did not prepare the topic in order to make our discourse more spontaneous and we think that was one of the reasons why we talked in a very superficial way. Some of us talked more than the previous programs but we did not go beyond; we were just describing things, events, people, but we never went deeper and we did not focus on an idea. We think that probably we did not understand each other, even when sometimes

43

we tried to make ourselves clear. At the end, we were not able to construct a discourse as a group. A positive point has to do with the fact that we are better at the moment of taking the floor, and during this program we could see that we have learnt when to start an intervention and how to finish; and also how to interrupt the other when we want to add something. Finally, at this point, the nervousness and the anxiety have almost disappeared and we were more relaxed when talking to a microphone knowing that a lot of people were listening to us. This is reflected in the length of the speeches that were longer. And we could also hear how the vocabulary and the grammatical structures have improved a lot. We think that this improvement is due to the preproduction activities and to the responsibility we must have when producing a radio program. 7.2.2 ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS

7.2.2.1 CYCLE 1 The first cycle of the implementation finished with the self-assessment of our performance during the recording of the first radio program. For this self-assessment process, we took into account the rubrics (see appendix 001) we adapted and adopted from international tests and that matched the characteristics of this research project. This process was aimed at confirming whether or not the working hypothesis was true or not. It may be important to recall that we hypothesized that the production of a radio program in English

44

would bring about Naturally-Occurring Discourse that could empower participants to improve their EFL Spoken Interaction Competence (SIC) level. It is pertinent, at this point, to talk about the activities carried out during the first cycle because they were an important part of the process of improving our SIC through the production of a radio program. Thus, at the beginning of this research project we proposed three previous activities in preparation for the recording of the radio program in order to improve our SIC. The first activity we carried out was an informal discussion in which we talked about the selected topic in a general way with the intention of arriving at more specific issues of that topic that could deserve our attention. The second activity was another informal discussion but with a slight variation from the first one. This time, the idea was that we went deeply into the topic by talking about the specific issues we had highlighted as crucial during the previous session. This activity should have led us to a more organized, clear, and consistent discourse; however, it was not the case, according to the analysis of this cycle. The third activity we carried out right before the recording of the radio program was a debate. We chose a debate because it was supposed to be an excellent method to construct arguments in an interactive and representational way. Moreover, it was also expected to give us the chance to defend and attack positions about the topic, not only by giving opinions but by giving strong, reasonable, and coherent arguments. In this way we started by evaluating the concept of delivery (see appendix 002) related to the fluency, pronunciation, and automaticity in the target language. On the one hand, since delivery involved important elements of language, we noticed that it was necessary to make an extra effort to progress in this aspect of the SIC. In fact, we were

45

concerned about how to improve our utterances, showing them naturally with little hesitation and few repetitions, correct intonation and rhythm patterns, and a mechanized use of expressions in English. On the other hand, we noticed that most of us only sometimes showed a consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation, and automaticity. So, we were in the middle of the rating scale and it showed that we were having problems when trying to express, coherently and meaningfully, what we wanted to say. We also noticed that the informal discussions and the debate proposed to improve this aspect of the rubric did not work very well because the results were not completely positive. Another aspect that we took into account during the assessment of this cycle was the unity synthesis (see appendix 003).The relevance of this aspect is due to the importance of connecting and linking ideas in a coherent and cohesive way when producing discourse. Nevertheless, after listening to the radio program and having personally and collectively reflected on it, we noticed that we needed to develop a better grammatical and topical synthesis because the data, in the light of the rubrics, showed that only sometimes we were able to establish accurate and clear relationships between ideas in terms of topics and grammar. Regarding language use (see appendix 004), we learned that we had to do something to improve this aspect in the next cycle because we discovered that we seldom used clear and accurate language, showing a lot of mistakes in word choice or syntax, which affected the meaning or coherence of our speech. As with the delivery aspect, the activities carried out to improve unity synthesis were not enough to get a good performance. The descriptor called awareness of connotative levels of meaning (see appendix 005) led us to evaluate whether or not we had a good command of idiomatic expressions

46

and colloquialisms. These elements evidenced our ability to construct a natural discourse when we were trying to improve our SIC. Nevertheless, this first program showed that we seldom used idiomatic expressions or colloquialisms which indicated the difficulties of expressing pragmatic issues of the foreign language. Thus, the activities of the preproduction step did not cause a positive effect regarding this aspect of the rubrics. Another aspect analyzed of the SIC was formality (see appendix 006). This characteristic of the language sets out the way a person adopts a level of formality in the discourse according to the circumstances. In this cycle, the data demonstrated that the group adopted, just sometimes, this level of formality appropriate to the conditions of the radio program production. In addition, when discussing about the elements for repairing interaction (see appendix 007), we observed that we had difficulties when trying to backtrack and restructure what we were trying to say, which made us repeat the same mistakes without even being conscious about them or knowing what the others understood. We could observe, then, that we needed to make a change in the next cycle because the activities carried out for these two aspects were not effective. Concerning organization (see appendix 008), we must say that it became a critical aspect of the first program because the results evidenced that we seldom demonstrated a consistent method of organization. This fact was reflected on the poor development of the discussion and the confusion of ideas because it was difficult for everyone to follow what the others were trying to explain. Simultaneously, the aspect of argumentation (see appendix 009) played an important role when interacting in a foreign language. In this opportunity, it revealed that we seldom provided relevant explanations and arguments to

47

sustain our positions. Thus, we understood that if we did not have a clear method to organize our thoughts, it could be pretty difficult to construct a deeper discourse; and we could end up giving just superficial views about a topic that we could not sustain in a clear way. Organization and argumentation were intended to be improved during the first cycle, but we could notice that the activities carried out did not work in an appropriate way, since the results were not what we expected. According to the element of spontaneity (see appendix 010), the data showed that our discourse was seldom natural, probably because the topic did not fulfilled the expectations of the group or because it was not appealing enough to make us talk about the issue without restraint. Furthermore, we noticed the need to improve the aspects related to taking the floor (see appendix 011) when interacting orally. Although these aspects helped us to initiate, maintain, and end our interventions appropriately, we only sometimes used them effectively. Knowing that taking the floor is a key aspect when we study the SIC, we knew that we should do something to improve our performance in this descriptor. These two aspects of the rubrics were worked with the activities proposed for this cycle. However the activities did not fulfilled the expectations, so they needed to be reorganized for the next cycle. Another essential issue that made part of our SIC was asking for clarification (see appendix 012). This element allowed us to understand the importance of what the others were saying and the role of making questions in order to clarify any doubts. This led us to observe that this was the most critical of all the aspects we had assessed before because we never asked follow-up questions to check if our partners had understood what we intended

48

to say. The possible causes we found for this behavior were associated with the lack of vocabulary to utter these clarifications, and also the unawareness about the importance of this issue when interacting in a foreign language. The results related to this aspect of the rubrics led us to think that the activities carried out during this cycle should be reconsidered in order to get a better performance in the next cycles. The last aspect of the SIC assessed in this cycle was cooperating (see appendix 013). This issue led us to reflect on the importance to construct a mutual understanding and to maintain a group goal when carrying out a discourse task, in our case the discussion of a topic during the radio program production. However, the results proved that only sometimes we could relate our own contributions skillfully to those of other speakers by giving feedback, confirming comprehension, and following up statements and inferences. But knowing the importance of co-operation in an interactive discourse for EFL contexts, we felt that we had to make a stronger effort if we wanted to construct conjointly conversational discourse in order to improve our SIC during the production of a radio program in English. These results showed that the informal discussions chosen to improve our co-operating aspect of the SIC were not useful this time. Finally, according to the data collected in this cycle, we could notice that the three activities carried out in the first week (general informal discussion, particular informal discussion, and debate) were not very useful for improving our SIC since the results showed that most of the times, we were in the lower rates of the rubrics scale. However, we took into account that this was a process and it was necessary to observe the following cycles in order to know if the activities worked or not.

49

To conclude the analysis of this first cycle it is important to highlight that the fact of having reflected on our performance during the recording of a radio program was a metacognitive exercise where we learnt how we were learning an EFL. This is a remarkable aspect of our research project because here we started to monitor our learning process and we were also able to control that process in order to improve our SIC. 7.2.2.2 CYCLE 2 After listening to the second program we decided to focus on some specific aspects of the rubrics rather than to look at all of them. We observed that all the aspects of the SIC were dynamically linked because while we tried to improve some of them, we could improve other aspects indirectly. However, we determined that the descriptor delivery was going to be evaluated during the whole process all the cycles because we considered that it involved important characteristics when constructing a discourse without deliberate effort at a natural speed with little hesitation and a correct rhythm and intonation, and those were precisely some of the aspects that were going to help us improve our SIC. Hence, the result of the delivery analysis during the first cycle showed that most of us demonstrated a consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation, and automaticity, but only sometimes. According to the data, we decided to implement two different activities to improve this aspect. The first activity consisted of a controlled practice, both individual and group, full of repetitions or drills. This task helped us to review the pronunciation, rhythm, and changes in tone of particular and difficult words or sentences in the foreign language. Once

50

we had analyzed the form of the words we tried to take them by using them in a debate. As we mentioned before, the second activity involved a debate that allowed us to create a more sophisticated arguing context where we could put into practice strategies of pronunciation, fluency, and automaticity. However, the result of the analysis of this second cycle (see appendix 014) showed that we did not achieve any improvement in this aspect since the results remained the same. Moreover, during the activity of analysis of the radio program, we realized that most of us had some problems when trying to use the English language appropriately, organizing ideas in a coherent way, and getting other participants attention by turn-taking accurately. For this reason, we felt that the other aspects that needed to be analyzed during this second program were language use (see appendix 015), organization (see appendix 016), and taking the floor (see appendix 017). These aspects were part of the strategies that were going to empower us to facilitate a proper organization of the discourse with a clear and accurate language choice and the collaboration needed to keep the discussion with a reciprocal understanding. The results for language use (see appendix 015) demonstrated that most of us usually had a clear and accurate language use and the minor errors that we might had made did not affect the meaning and coherence of discourse while speaking. It is worth highlighting that even when the activities were planned only to improve delivery, the participants showed a much better performance regarding language use in this cycle. In fact, it seemed that the implementation of the debate, the second activity of the preproduction, generated a more complex level of argumentation and association of ideas;

51

besides, it promoted a constant use of interacting strategies for an appropriate and pertinent cooperation and turn taking. We also chose organization (see appendix 016) as an important feature to be evaluated for the second program since we noticed that the organization of discourse played an important part when trying to have a better level of interaction and mutual understanding. During the first cycle the organization aspect (see appendix 008) showed that the participants had problems when trying to organize their own ideas. In this cycle we could observe that we improved in a significant way because we usually demonstrated a clear and consistent method of organization. Due to the remarkable importance of turn taking strategies in interaction that we observed in the previous cycle, the aspect of taking the floor (see appendix 017) was chosen again to be assessed in this second program. It helped us learn if we were able to select suitable phrases from a readily available range of discourse in order to gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking. It also permitted us to follow if we could initiate, maintain, and end our interventions appropriately with effective turn taking. Additionally, it let us know if it was possible to preface or intervene with remarks in order to get the floor. The results confirmed that the debate was an effective activity because it permitted the group to successfully improve, showing that during this cycle we always had a good performance in taking the floor. At the end of the analysis of the rubrics for cycle 2 we realized that we improved our SIC because most of the participants were always, usually, or sometimes using the right

52

commands and activities, showing a good level of SIC. Besides, this second analysis helped us to use specific activities to improve particular aspects of the discourse. 7.2.2.3 CYCLE 3 Considering the results obtained in the analysis of cycle 2, we decided to start this new cycle by implementing two activities with the purpose of reinforcing and improving particular features of our SIC. Since the aspect of delivery did not show positive results we determined to implement a gathering, a get-together informal discussion. This activity was supposed to involve a task for sharing ideas and providing critical and supportive feedback in a more relaxed and comfortable environment which could lead us to reach a better pronunciation, automaticity, and fluency in the target language. In the second activity we returned to the debate. As we noticed in previous analysis it was a key element when trying to improve most aspects of our discourse (such us organization, argumentation, taking the floor and co-operating). In this cycle the dynamics of the debate generated a controversial discussion that influenced positively our progress in terms of organization of ideas, construction of convincing arguments, and clarification of imprecise or ambiguous points of view. During the third cycle we continued assessing the aspect of delivery (see appendix 018). We compared the features of fluency, pronunciation, and automaticity of our discourse in this program with those in the second radio program. Here we discovered that we had a significant improvement in delivery because we went from being in the middle of the rating scale sometimes to being able to demonstrate a consistent and accurate fluency,

53

pronunciation, and automaticity almost all the time during the third radio program (see appendix 014). It also implied that the possible minor errors we made, did not affect the meaning or coherence of our speech. Thus, the group was situated in a positive usually result. Therefore, we could prove that the activity planned was useful to improve the delivery aspect of our discourse. Probably the most outstanding aspect of our performance in the third radio program was the one related to the ability of taking the floor (see appendix 019). Here, we observed that the debate was a crucial element of the preproduction and we noticed that we had improved in a significant way, since we could always initiate, maintain, and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking when interacting orally. Also, we could always preface our participations with what our partners had previously said. This issue was reflected in the construction of a dynamic development of the discussion through the negotiation of ideas, opinions, and points of view. In contrast, the assessment of the organization aspect (see appendix 020) of our performance showed that we still had problems when trying to demonstrate a clear and consistent method of organization. Indeed, we stayed in the same rating of the previous cycle (see appendix 016) which evidenced that our group just sometimes had consistency when organizing ideas. However, we did not see these results as a negative experience; on the contrary, it gave us the strength and the awareness to work harder in order to improve this aspect of the SIC in next programs. Besides, although the activity of debating did not accomplish the purpose of improvement, this fact represented an opportunity to review our process and to look for new and pertinent tasks and dynamics.

54

The last aspect we analyzed in this cycle was repair interaction (see appendix 021) which is the capacity to be conscious of our mistakes and to be able to backtrack and restructure when we make those mistakes. The results showed that we were seldom able to repair our interventions when we were wrong, and just like in the first cycle (see appendix 007), we were not aware of our difficulties. Concerning this aspect, the assessment demonstrated how this continued to be a critical characteristic of our performance since we did not have any progress as compared with the first radio program. Hence, the debate as an activity demonstrated not to be enough for improving our capacity to correct and restructure our interventions. Finally, we must highlight the noticeable and significant improvement on the aspects of delivery and taking the floor. It seemed that both the activities carried out during the preproduction stages and the self-reflection processes allowed us to be aware of our own problems related to these features of our SIC, giving us the opportunity to look for pertinent activities to improve them. Nevertheless, this assessment showed us difficulties concerned organization and repair interaction which led us to find new possibilities to enhance these aspects in our discourse. 7.2.2.4 CYCLE 4 In the previous cycle we could see that we were making significant improvements in every aspect evaluated in each cycle so far. For the fourth cycle we chose to analyze five aspects of the rubrics: delivery(see appendix 022), unity synthesis(see appendix 023), spontaneity(see appendix 024), formality (see appendix 025), and co-operating(see

55

appendix 026). These aspects were considered important to analyze because they were key elements in the SIC and promoted a natural and accurate discourse at a natural speed with mutual collaboration and understanding of the speakers. We selected two different activities to improve previous problematic aspects in our oral production. The idea was to prove if those problems were solved by the activities carried out during the preproduction phase of the radio program. In the preceding cycle we showed improvement in the delivery (see appendix 022) aspect of the SIC, because we reached a Usually in the rating scale. Knowing that the goal was to arrive to the highest level of the rating scale, but also being conscious that this was a process, we decided to keep on working with the debate as an activity to improve and reinforce this feature. However, the activity was not enough and the results showed that we remained in the same rating scale of the previous cycle demonstrating consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity just usually. We must say that the idea to continue carrying out debates was to push ourselves to be more prepared and more responsible respect to the radio program, because that activity obliged us to be informed about different topics, to take positions and to defend those positions with clear arguments. Obviously that exercise was not easy and since we knew that it was a learning process, we decided to go on doing debates. As we wanted to reinforce our vocabulary in order to have a better performance in the descriptor unity synthesis, we decided to carry out different short activities such as memory games with words related to the topic of the radio program during the first session of the preproduction. Additionally, we played a popular game called hangman in which we

56

not only tried to find the hidden word but also tried to explain it with our own words. The results of the analysis in terms of unity of synthesis (see appendix 023) showed that we always demonstrated topical and grammatical unity and the relationship between ideas were clear and accurate both topically and grammatically. This confirmed that the proposed activities helped us to reach a remarkable progress in this aspect. Regarding the aspect of spontaneity (see appendix 024) the results showed that we already had a good level in this aspect, reflected in a natural and voluntary speech without much deliberate effort during the radio program. Besides, the analysis demonstrated that all of us adopted a good level of formality (see appendix 025) appropriate to circumstances of the context. Lastly, we assessed the aspect of co-operating (see appendix 026), revealing that we always gave feedback and followed up statements and inferences that helped the development of a discussion with a collective creation of meaning through an effective negotiation of ideas, opinions and points of view. These activities became significant when we observed that these three aspects of the rubrics were closely related between each other, encouraging the production of a coherent and accurate discourse with mutual collaboration and understanding in a natural way in the radio program. At the end of this analysis we could noticed that we had gathered already good levels in different aspects and that the proposed activities, helped us to reinforce or to remember things they already knew. We could also notice that we started to be more conscious of our learning process and that it let us to analyze where we were failing and what we could do to improve (correct those aspects where we failed).

57

7.2.2.5 CYCLE 5 According to the results of the past cycle we decided to implement some activities that were intended to help us improve aspects of delivery, spontaneity, formality, language use, co-operating and argumentation. Thus, we chose to watch a video regarding the topic of the week. Through watching a video we pretended to increase our listening skill, our vocabulary and our pronunciation since we not only read but also heard how the words where pronounced. As a second activity we carried out a gathering where we shared our perspectives about the topic. This activity was important because we were supposed to build and to communicate our arguments and it also pushed us to use an adequate language in order to be clear in front of our partners. Cycle number 4 showed that the participants had a good performance regarding the delivery aspect (see appendix 022) of the rubrics, situating their interventions in the rating scale Usually. In this cycle (see appendix 027), we observed a remarkable improvement of this feature of the SIC because we could always demonstrate consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity with minor difficulties that did not affect the meaning of what we intended to express. In this case, the awareness about the feature delivery helped us to improve our knowledge and proper use of the oral form of the language we were learning. According to this result, we could observe that the proposed activities were a significant element in our improvement of delivery aspect of our SIC, since this was the first time we achieved highest level of the rating scale.

58

Furthermore, the assessment of the aspect of spontaneity (see appendix 028) confirmed that the speech of the participants was always voluntary, natural and effortless. This aspect contrasts to the activity of reading aloud where the word sequence is highl y predictable. Spontaneity is important to highlight because what we tried to do in the radio program was not to read but to interact as spontaneously as possible. This performance proved that the activities carried out during the past week had a positive impact on our SIC because during the previous cycles the level of spontaneity of the participants had been lower. Another analyzed aspect was formality (see appendix 029), showing that the whole group always adopted a high level of formality according to the circumstances of recording a radio program. Making a comparison with the last cycle, our performance on this aspect of the rubrics showed a consistent improvement. As for the co-operating feature (see appendix 030), we found that we always could give feedback and follow up statements and inferences, helping to develop and maintain a dynamic discussion with mutual collaboration. Our positive performance on this aspect was reflected in the way we could relate our own contributions to those of the others, sharing ideas and opinions and finally constructing a discourse in a conjoined way. The activities carried out during this cycle contributed positively in the improvement of these aspects of our SIC, because the assessment of both formality and co-operating revealed a stable and progressive upgrading. Language use (see appendix 031) is another aspect of the rubrics that we took into account during this fifth cycle. The results told us that we always demonstrated clear and accurate language and that the errors we made did not affect our meaning or coherence.

59

Thus, we could hear a more flawless discourse during the radio program. Contrasting this data with the date from the second cycle (see appendix 015) we could observe that we improved the way how we were using language. Afterward, we arrived to the last aspect analyzed in this program called argumentation (see appendix 032). This aspect followed the line brought up until this moment of the process, and showed that we consolidated our performances by always sustaining our views clearly by providing relevant explanations and arguments. This performance was visibly better than our performance during the first cycle (see appendix 009), where we seldom fulfilled the parameters of this aspect of the rubrics. In this way, we could affirm that watching a video and talking about it were two effective exercises when trying to develop our ability to use adequate language and construct arguments. Finally, we can say that the whole group had a relevant performance during this cycle and it proved that the work done during the week previous to the recording of the radio program was worthwhile. Also, a consistent and regular improvement from the previous cycles was noticeable. 7.2.2.6 CYCLE 6 Taking into account the positive results from all 5 cycles so far we decided to choose two different activities that contain all the positive aspects presented in the previous activities. We could say that all the activities that we had been implementing in order to improve different aspects of the SIC had worked in a significant and important way.

60

For the last cycle we decided to choose a polemic topic in order to promote and impulse our level of argumentation. This was an opportunity to enhance the complexity of our discourse by challenging the others to create strong arguments and contra arguments in the discussion. It was a topic which made us feel comfortable to interact. In order to reinforce what we had improved, we put into practice two different activities intended to develop the aspects of delivery, language use, organization and argumentation. In the first activity we had to listen to news, to be updated and read about the topic; this activity was really important because it involved research and this made part of all the past cycles. This activity may help us improved the aspects of organization, argumentation, language use and delivery. The second activity consisted of a discussion; in this discussion we had to ask polemic or complex question to the others in order to challenge us. We expected this activities would help us improved the specific aspects of the rubrics. The aspect of Delivery (see appendix 033) continued being evaluated with the aim to see if we tried enough to get our level in this aspect to a higher one. The result showed that all the participants always demonstrated consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity. Concerning Language Use (see appendix 034) the assessment showed that we always demonstrated clear and accurate language and that the errors we made did not affect the meaning or coherence of the ideas we were trying to say. According to these results the activities that were planned to challenge us to improve had a significant impact in our level. On the one hand, the results from the Organization (see appendix 035) aspect demonstrated that the majority of the participants usually had a clear and consistent method

61

of organization when trying to talk and interact with the other participants of the group. On the other hand, regarding the aspect of Argumentation (see appendix 036), the assessment showed that the majority of the participants usually could sustain views clearly by providing relevant explanations and arguments. It is necessary to highlight, at his point, that the second activity the participants carried out during the pre production of the radio program had as main goal to help us to reinforce what we had already improved in terms of Organization and Argumentation. At the end of the analysis of the sixth cycle, we could see how all the participants involved in the radio program production had improved our own spoken interaction level through all the activities planned for each aspect of the rubric in each cycle. These results proved that the production of radio program help in the self-awareness and further improvement of the spoken interaction competence in a foreign language learning process. 7.3 Posttest 7.3.1 Task 1

Task 1 consisted of an hour meeting divided in three parts. In this task we were given a hypothetical problematic situation that we had to analyze individually taking into account all the situation aspects. After doing that we socialized our ideas expressing/telling our arguments, trying to defend them and forcing our partners to do the same. Finally we tried to get to a common agreement. 7.3.2 Task 2

62

The second task was very similar to the first one (one hour meeting, divided in three parts) differing only on the nature of the topic because in this one the participants were given a problematic situation taken from a real context. In this case we were supposed to use previous knowledge since the situation provided a trendy and common topic. 7.3.3 Task 3

The third task was also a one hour meeting with three different activities. For this task we were given a picture that we had to analyze, socialize, and conclude our ideas about the possible meaning of the picture. The first part of the task was to give an individual idea of what the image meant for every one of us. Then we proceeded socialize our thoughts about it, and finally we had to arrive to some agreements related to the meaning of the image. 7.4 Pre-test and Posttest Results and Analysis 7.4.1 Task 1 Pre-test and Posttest Results

63

Words - Task 1
Pre-Test Posttest Difference

4899 3392 1507 44% Pre-Test Posttest Difference

Graph 1Task 1:Words Graph 1 shows the number of words uttered by the participants during the Task 1 pre- and posttests. According to this data participants spoke 3392 words in the pretest in contrast to the posttest where they said 4899 words which implies a difference of 1507 words. It means that during the posttest there was an increase of 44% of words used by the participants.

64

Interventions - Task 1
Pre-Test Posttest Difference

253 200

53 21% Pre-Test Posttest Difference

Graph 2 task 1: Interventions Graph 2 illustrates the number of interventions performed by the participants in both the pretest and posttest. According to the data the participants intervened 253 times during the pretest different from the posttest where the participants intervened 200 times. These results indicate that participants performed 53 interventions less which represents a reduction of 21% of interventions for the posttest.

65

Moves - Task 1
Pre-test Posttest Difference

309 252

57 18% Pre-test Posttest Difference

Graph 3Task 1: Moves Graphic 3 shows the number of moves of the participants during Task 1 pre-and posttests. According to the data there was a reduction of 18% of the moves used by the participants contrasting with the number of moves used in the pretest. The difference was of 57 less moves, since in the pretest there were 309 moves while in the posttest there were 252.

66

Time - Task 1
Pre-test Posttest Difference

37.3

39.5

2,2 / 6% Pre-test Posttest Difference

Graph 4Task 1: Time Graphic 4 shows the length of time the participants spoke in task 1 of the pre and posttests. During the pre-test the participants spoke for 37,3 minutes while in the post test they spoke for 39,9 minutes. According to the graphic there was a decrease of 6% in the length of spoken time with 2,2 less minutes in the posttest. 7.4.2 Analysis of the Task 1 Pre-test and Posttest Results

Taking into account the data we gathered (see graphs 1 through 4 in which we compared the results of the first task of the pre-test and posttests), it is possible to state, at first sight, that there was a significant improvement in the SIC level. One of the aspects

67

analyzed was the number of words uttered by the participants during the first task, in both the pre-test and posttest. We understand that the difference between the number of words (4899 for the posttest compared to 3392 in the pre-test) might suggest that the participants were able to say more (at least in terms of words). However, even if we wanted to consider the number of words as an indicator of the improvement of the participants, they have to be related and correlated to other aspects in order to determine if the number of words in fact contributed significantly to the improvement of the SIC, such as the moves and time length. One of the relationships we could extract from this data was the one existent between moves and words. According to this result it is possible to say that the participants might be clearer in their speech because they uttered more words in less moves. The pretest of task 1 showed that the participants performed 309 moves and 3392 words. As for the posttest the participants used 252 moves and 4899 words. We can observe that there was a reduction of 52 moves and an increase of 1507 words. The time data from task 1 shows that in the pre-test the participants spoke 37 minutes 3 seconds and they used 3392 words. Meanwhile in the posttest, the participants spoke 39 minutes 5 seconds, using 4899 words. This relationship could confirm that the participants made profit of the time they had for the task by speaking more. Another relationship to be analyzed was among interventions and moves. The interventions results showed that the participants used 253 interventions and 309 moves. And in the posttest there were 200 interventions and 252 moves, which shows a decrease of 21% of the interventions and 18 % of the moves in the posttest. Respect to this relationship

68

it is possible to say that between less moves in each interventions the participants created a more clear and coherent speech when trying to interact with others. These results might confirm that the RPP had an important influence on the improvement of the participants SIC level during the first task. 7.4.3 Task 2 Pre-test and Posttest Results

Words Task 2
pre-test posttest diferencia

6322 5106

1216 pre-test posttest diferencia

Graph 5 Task 2: Words Graphic 5 indicates the number of words say by the participants during the Task 2 pre- and posttests. According to this data during the pretest the participants spoke 5106 69

words, and in the posttest they used 6322 words. This data implies a difference of 1216 words and an increase of 24% of words used by the participants

Interventions Task 2
pre-test posttest diferencia

121 88

33 pre-test posttest diferencia

Graph 6 Task 2: Interventions The graphic number 6 shows the number of interventions uttered by the participants in the second task in both the pre/posttest. According to the data there was a decrease of 27% of the interventions in the posttest compared to pretest. In the pre-test the participants perform 121 interventions while in the post test they spoke 88 times which make a difference of 33 interventions.

70

Moves Task 2
pre-test posttest diferencia

147 121

26 pre-test posttest diferencia

Graph 7 Task 2: Moves Graph number 7 illustrates the number of moves performed by the participants during Task 2 pre-and posttests. According to the data the participants uttered 147 moves in the pretest and 121 in the posttest; which makes a difference of 26 less moves, showing a reduction of 18% of the moves uttered during the whole task.

71

Time Task 2
pre-test posttest diferencia

57.47 46.24

11.23 pre-test posttest diferencia

Graph 8Task 2: Time The graph number 8 shows the time length the participants used in the second task in both the pre/posttest. According to the data there was a decrease of 20% of the spoken time in the posttest compared to pretest. In the pretest the participants spoke for 57, 47 minutes while in the post test the participants used 46, 24 minutes which makes a difference of 11, 23 minutes during the whole task. 7.4.4 Analysis of the Task 2 Pre-test and Posttest Results

72

Taking into account the data we gathered (see graphs to 8 in which we compared the results of the second task of the pre and posttests it is possible to state at that there was a important advance in the SIC level. One of the aspects analyzed was the number of words said by the participants during the task 2 in both the pre and the posttests. The participants uttered more words in the posttest (6322) than in the pretest (5106) it implies a difference of 1216 words uttered. However, this data might suggest that the participants improve in terms of words said. However, it is not possible to be evaluated the number of words itself as an indicator of improvement in the SIC; this data have to be related and correlated with two other aspects such as time, moves and length, for determining if the number of words means a significant fact in the improvement of SIC. The data from task 2 show that in the pre-test the participants used 147 moves and 5106 words. As for the posttest the participants used 121 moves and 6322 words. It is visible a reduction of moves (18 %) with 26 less moves and an increase of 1216 words, which makes the 24%. It could represent an association between moves performed and the number of words uttered, according to this data; it is possible to say that the participants might be clearer taking about speech since they said more word using lees moves. The data from task 2 shows the time the participants took in both the pre-posttest, in the pretest the participants spoke 57 minutes 47 seconds and they used 5106 words. Meanwhile in the posttest, the participants spoke 46 minutes 24 seconds, using 6322 this data could represents that the participants take advantage of the time they had for task by speaking more.

73

Finally it appears another correlation to be analyzed was the interventions and moves. The interventions data results shows that the participants used 121 interventions and 147 moves. Meanwhile in the posttest the participants performed 88 interventions and 121 moves, this data represents a decrease of 27% of the interventions and 18 % of the moves during the posttest. According to this correlation it is possible to affirm that if the participants performed less moves in each interventions means a clearer and coherent speech when trying to interact with others. Taking into account this results we could confirm that the RPP play an important role in the improvement of the participants SIC level according to the second task. 7.4.5 Task 3 Pre-test and posttest Results

74

Words Task 3
pre-test posttest difference

7129 5395

1734

pre-test

posttest

difference

Graph 9 Task 3: Words Graph 9 shows the number of words uttered by the participants during the Task 3 pre- and posttests. According to this data participants spoke 5395 words while in the posttest they used 7129 words which implies a difference of 1734 words, in other words, during the post test there was an increase of 32% of words used by the participants contrasting with the amount of words uttered in the pretest.

75

Interventions Task 3
pre-test posttest difference

308 240

68 pre-test posttest difference

Graph 10 Task 3: Interventions Graph 10 illustrates the number of interventions performed by the participants in both the pretest and posttest. In this case, the data showed that participants intervened 308 times during the pretest in contrast of the posttest where the participants intervened 240 times. This indicates that participants performed 68 interventions less which represents a reduction of 22% of interventions for the posttest.

76

Moves Task 3
pre-test posttest difference

428

281 147

pre-test

posttest

difference

Graph 11Task 3: Moves Graph 11 shows the quantity of moves of the participants all through the task 3 in both the pretest and posttest. During the pretest participants utter 428 moves while the posttest participants performed 281 moves. It represents that participants uttered 147 more moves in the pretest which implies a decrease of 34% for the posttest.

77

Words Task 3
pre-test posttest difference

7129 5395

1734

pre-test

posttest

difference

Graph 12 Task 3: Time. Graph 12 illustrates the time length the participants spoke in task 3 pre-and posttests. During the pretest participants used 42,2 minutes while in the post test they spoke for 32,05 minutes. According to the data participants spoke 10.15 less minutes which represent a reduction of 24% in time length used in the posttest in contrast to the pretest. 7.4.6 Analysis of the Task 3 Pre-test and Posttest

Based on the gathered data (see graphs nine to twelve in which we compare obtain data from the third task of the pre-test and posttest), it is possible to assert that there was a significant improvement of the SIC level in the participants. As the aspects analyzed in task

78

one and two, the number of words uttered by the participants in both, the pre-test and posttest for the task three. We appreciate that the number of words 5395 for the pre-test compare to 7129 for the posttest) may suggest that the participant were able to produce more words (referring to said words). Concerning the relation between moves and word for task three, it is possible to determine that this time participants were also clearer in their speech by using more words in less speech moves. As for the pre-test the participants perform 5395 words and 428 moves. As for the posttest the participants uttered 7129 words and 281 moves. We could observe that there was an increase of 1734 words and a reduction of 147 speech moves. The gathered data from the task three for time display that participants spoke 42 minutes 2 seconds and there were used 5395 words for the pre-test; meanwhile for the posttest participants spoke 32 minutes 5 seconds using 7129 words. This relationship suggests that there was an increase of words in less time showing the participants exploit the time they had to speak. The final analyzed relationship we correlated was interventions and moves having the final results as the referent we can see that participants intervened 308 times and had 428 moves for the pre-test and in the posttest participants uttered 281 moves in 240 interventions. This results show a decrease in 22% of interventions and 34% of moves in the posttest consequently, as we have said before it can be concluded that less interventions and less moves indicates a more coherent and clear discourse when they had the floor. Then to conclude, the RPP is a tool that helped students to increase their level of SIC.

79

8. CONCLUSIONS At the beginning of this study, we stated that the production of a radio program could influence the improvement of the EFL spoken interaction competence. We claimed that the MLP of the University did not provide students with enough spaces and opportunities to use English in real time consequently; we hypothesized that the engagement in the pre-production and production of a radio program could help us to significantly improve our SIC level because a RP had many activities that demanded a constant interaction by participants. In this study we set up a quantitative approach in order to determine an initial and a final point and after the implementation of a diagnostic pretest we could identify some difficulties concerning SIC level in the participants; difficulties such as excessive use of fillers, lack of fluency, pronunciation, accuracy in language use, turn taking and turn giving, and so forth. Finally, after the implementation of the methodology, participants were submitted to a posttest. From the analysis of both tests we obtained the final conclusions presented below: During two and a half months participants worked in the production of a radio program where they had to plan, prepare and record a weekly program completely in English. In one hand, the radio production encouraged a constant collaboration among the participants when learning technical aspects concerning editing and recording. On the other hand, it allowed participants to create stages that demanded constant spoken interaction through

80

informal and formal discussions, debates and goal-oriented tasks. These activities helped participants to improve the SIC in an EFL context when constructing a conjoined discourse through the negotiation of meaning and mutual understanding while deciding about the information managed in the RPP. Besides, the production of this discourse revealed the way radio production became a relevant element that promoted a naturally occurring discourse when people communicated with each other. Knowing that the nature of radio involves interaction among the producers or participants as we presented before, it also implies the interaction between producers and society, in this case the participants and listeners of the RP. These dynamic influenced and motivated participants to create awareness towards the listener which implicated a constant construction of a fluent, clear and organized discourse easily understood by others. Therefore, since RPP required a continuous use of the spoken form of language, participants felt bound to improve: first, the aspect of fluency in the target language, in order to be understandable in front of the listeners; second the issues related to the organization of ideas with the purpose of being more clear to the public without many doubts or any hesitations about the topic. Thus, in order to accomplish a successful SIC and considering the dynamics of the Radio Program Production, participants had to maintain a constant planning and preparation that encouraged them to increase the rhythm of work by reading about different topics and achieve the necessary vocabulary and the grammatical elements to produce an organized, clear and coherent speech.

81

The main achievement of the research project was focused on the self-assessment process of the participants. In fact, it became a key factor when making reflections on their own learning process specifically regarding the SIC. From the beginning of the project we were aware that just the production of a radio program was not enough to improve the SIC of the participants. Thus, it was necessary to look for a methodology that permitted a continuous interaction in English in all the stages of the RPP that included the recording and most importantly the preproduction of the RP. That said, it was decided to implement a methodology based on the Action Research Method where the participants had the opportunity to find the best way to produce a radio program by the implementation of a cyclic process that involved the stages of proposal, implementation, analysis and redesign of the activities and the dynamics of the development of the RPP. Consequently, as a fundamental part of the analysis step of the cyclic process, the participants carried out a self-assessment exercise that allowed them to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and to construct awareness in their EFL learning process. Moreover, this self-assessment exercise motivated participants to seek meaningful activities or actions that helped them to improve particular and key features of the foreign language, and empowered them to be active participants in the construction of knowledge through reflection. Additionally, this methodology allowed and encouraged participants to be part of their own learning process by means of a metacognitive exercise where they were able to assess their own performances in each cycle and to control their learning behaviors when trying to

82

improve their SIC by the RPP. This analysis led participants to a deeper metacognitive process that could mark the beginning of a new research in this area. After analyzing the statistical data taken from the results of the pre-and posttest we can observe a significant improvement in the SIC level of the participants when producing of a RP in English. In fact, the results evidenced how participants could construct an oral discourse that conveyed proper characteristics of the SIC. Thus, it was possible to recognize a conjoined and fluent discourse, coherent, grammatically and formally appropriate, with a good level of argumentation, spontaneity and pronunciation where participants were able to negotiate meaning through the co-operative principle by following their partners speech and intervening appropriately in a conversation. These elements were developed and appropriated by participants during the RPP by means of the implementation of the Action Research methodology proving the remarkable influence of this cyclic process in the improvement of the level of the SIC.

83

9. RECOMENDACIONES This chapter contains the recommendations that we as researchers consider students, researchers and teachers should take into consideration when analyzing the influence of a Radio Program Production in the improvement of the EFL spoken interaction competence level. These suggestions emerged after the development and analysis of this research in which we conclude that the production of a Radio Program improve the Spoken Interaction Competence. Undoubtedly after the development of this study, we suggest that the modern language program has more spaces where the students can improved their level of spoken interaction competence, the interaction is really important for a teacher to know because they need to have a good level of SIC to communicate clear and coherently with others. We also recommend that the methodology used in the intervention phase get implemented in the classes because it allows students to interact more, learn and teach in a better way were factor such as self-monitoring and self-assessment become essential for the students process. Finally, we recommend that the modern languages program include a radio program as an activity to help students improve not only their SIC, but many other aspects when trying to learn a foreign language. To conclude, we specially recommend that this kind of researches keep been doing because as this first step allowed us to know other methodologies to learn a foreign language, it can be also an alternative to those students who could have similar interests for improving their learned languages through activities done outside classroom.

84

WORKS CITED Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 2000 Brown, Gillian and Yule, George. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Print. Buenda, Alexander. Radio, Youngsters and Citizenship. Calitz, Magdalena Gertruide. A Cultural Sensitive, Therapeutical Approach to enhance Emotional Intelligence in Primary School Children. 2009. Pdf document. Consulted on February 11 2012 at uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/1648 Educational Testing Service. How to prepare for the next generation TOEFL test and Communicate with Confidence. Princenton: ETS, 2005. Print. Ellis, Rod. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print. Hughes, Rebecca. Teaching and Researching: Speaking. Great Britain: Pearson Education. 2002. Print L, Thao. Communicative Strategies in Interlanguage. AARE, 2005. Pdf document. Consulted on February 11 2012 at www.aare.edu.au/05pap/le05661.pdf

vi

Lpez Forero, Luis. Introduccin a los medios de comunicacin. Trans. Mauricio Cern, Carlos Flrez y Liliana Solarte. Bogot: Universidad Santo Toms, 1990. Print. Ministerio de Cultura. Voces y sonoridades de un proceso ciudadano. Bogot: Ministerio de Cultura, 2010. Print. Merriam WebsterDictionary. Consulted on April 10 2012 at.http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/correlation Orwig, Carol J. Guidelines for a Language and Culture Learning Program. 1998. Consulted on January 27 2012 at www.sil.org/lingualinks/languagelearning/otherresources/gudlnsfralnggandcltrlnngprgm/sp eakingskill.htm Son, Lisa and Schwartz, Bennett. Applied Metacognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. Stirling, Bruce. Speaking and Writing Strategies for the TOEFL IBT. Los Angeles: Nova Press, 2009. PDF document. Consulted on November 11 2011 at http://www.tnu.edu.vn/sites/trangtran/Sch%20%20Gio%20trnh%20tham%20kho/18890575 84%20Speaking%20and%20Writing%20Strat1.pdf Romo Gil, Mara Cristina. Introduccin al conocimiento y prctica de la Radio. Trans. Mauricio Cern, Carlos Flrez y Liliana Solarte. Ciudad de Mxico: Editorial Diana. 1985. Print.

vii

Masarikova Universita, Department of English, Language and Literature. Consulte don February 11 2012 at http://www.ped.muni.cz/weng/entrance_exams

viii

APPENDIX 001 RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE RUBRICS Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

Organization Demonstrates a clear and consistent method of organization Unity synthesis Demonstrates topical and grammatical unity and/or synthesis; the relationship between ideas is clear and accurate both topically and grammatically. Language use Demonstrates clear and accurate language use and/or minor errors in word choice and/ or idiom usage and / or syntax do not affect meaning or coherence. Delivery The delivery demonstrates consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity; minor difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/ or coherence or require listener effort to understand. Awareness of connotative levels of meaning Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms.

ix

Repair interaction Can backtrack and around a difficulty. restructure

Spontaneity and formality Can communicate spontaneously with a good grammatical control without much sign of having to restrict what he or she wants to say adopting a level of formality appropriate to circumstances. Argumentation Can sustain views clearly by providing relevant explanations and arguments. Taking the floor Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to: Gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking. Initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking. Preface or intervene his/her remarks appropriately in order to get the floor. Co-operating Can relate own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers by: Giving feedback on and follow up statements and inferences and so help the development of the discussion. Helping the discussion along on

familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc. Asking for clarification Can ask follow-up questions to check that he/she has understood what a speaker intended to say, and get clarification of ambiguous points.

xi

APPENDIX 002 RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Delivery

The delivery demonstrates ALWAYS consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity; minor difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/or coherence or require listener effort to understand. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 APPENDIX 003 Organization

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Demonstrates a clear and ALWAYS consistent method of organization MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3

xii

APPENDIX 003 Unity synthesis RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates topical and grammatical unity and/or synthesis; the relationship ALWAYS between ideas is clear and accurate both topically and grammatically MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 APPENDIX 004

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

Language use

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates clear and accurate language use and/or minor errors in word choice ALWAYS and/ or idiom usage and / or syntax do not affect meaning or coherence MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

xiii

APPENDIX 005 RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Awareness

of

connotative

levels of meaning Has a good command of ALWAYS idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 APPENDIX 006 Repair interaction Can backtrack restructure around difficulty. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 and a RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

ALWAYS

USUALLY

SOMETIMES

SELDOM

NEVER

xiv

APPENDIX 007 Spontaneity RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Describes the voluntary and natural speech characterized by highly unpredictable word sequences (in contrast to the activity of reading aloud ALWAYS where the word sequence is highly predictable) and speech disfluencies such us fillers, repetitions, restarts and pauses. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 APPENDIX 008 Formality

USUALLY

SOMETIMES

SELDOM

NEVER

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Adopts a level of formality ALWAYS appropriate to circumstances. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3

xv

APPENDIX 009 Argumentation RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Can sustain views clearly by providing relevant ALWAYS explanations and arguments MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 APPENDIX 010 Taking the floor

USUALLY

SOMETIMES

SELDOM

NEVER

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to: Gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking. ALWAYS Initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking.Preface or intervene his/her remarks appropriately in order to get the floor. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3

USUALLY

SOMETIMES

SELDOM

NEVER

xvi

APPENDIX 011 Co-operating Can relate own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers by: Giving feedback on and follow up statements and inferences and so help the ALWAYS development of the discussion.Helping the discussion along on familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3 APPENDIX 012 Asking for clarification RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

Can ask follow-up questions ALWAYS to check that he/she has understood what a speaker intended to say, and get clarification of ambiguous points. MP 1 MP 2 FP 1 FP 2 FP 3

xvii

APPENDIX 013 Delivery RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

The delivery demonstrates ALWAYS consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity; minor difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/or coherence or require listener effort to understand. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 014 Organization

X X X X X

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Demonstrates a clear and ALWAYS consistent method of organization LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C.

X X X X X

xviii

APPENDIX 015 Language use RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates clear and accurate language use and/or minor errors in word choice ALWAYS and/ or idiom usage and / or syntax do not affect meaning or coherence LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. X JULIAN C. APPENDIX 016 Taking the floor

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to: Gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking. ALWAYS Initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking.Preface or intervene his/her remarks appropriately in order to get the floor. X LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C.

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

X X

xix

APPENDIX 017 Delivery RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

The delivery demonstrates consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and ALWAYS automaticity; minor difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/or coherence or require listener effort to understand. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 018 Organization

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X X

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Demonstrates a clear and ALWAYS consistent method of organization LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C.

X X X X X

xx

APPENDIX 019 Repair interaction Can backtrack restructure around difficulty LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 020 Taking the floor RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE and a ALWAYS

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM X X X X

NEVER

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to: Gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking. ALWAYS Initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking.Preface or intervene his/her remarks appropriately in order to get the floor. X LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C.

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X

xxi

APPENDIX 021 Delivery RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

The delivery demonstrates consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and ALWAYS automaticity; minor difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/or coherence or require listener effort to understand. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 022 Unity synthesis X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates topical and grammatical unity and/or synthesis; the relationship ALWAYS between ideas is clear and accurate both topically and grammatically X LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C.

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X

xxii

APPENDIX 023 Spontaneity RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Describes the voluntary and natural speech characterized by highly unpredictable word sequences (in contrast to the activity of reading aloud ALWAYS where the word sequence is highly predictable) and speech disfluencies such us fillers, repetitions, restarts and pauses. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 024 Formality X X X X X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Adopts a level of formality ALWAYS appropriate to circumstances X LEIDY J. X CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C.

xxiii

APPENDIX 025 Co-operating Can relate own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers by: Giving feedback on and follow up statements and inferences and so help the ALWAYS development of the discussion.Helping the discussion along on familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc. X LEIDY J. X CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C. APPENDIX 026 RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

Delivery

The delivery demonstrates consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and ALWAYS automaticity; minor difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/or coherence or require listener effort to understand. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X

xxiv

xxv

APPENDIX 001 Language use RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates clear and accurate language use and/or minor errors in word choice ALWAYS and/ or idiom usage and / or syntax do not affect meaning or coherence X LEIDY J. X CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001 Spontaneity

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Describes the voluntary and natural speech characterized by highly unpredictable word sequences (in contrast to the activity of reading aloud ALWAYS where the word sequence is highly predictable) and speech disfluencies such us fillers, repetitions, restarts and pauses. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X

xxvi

APPENDIX 001 Formality RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Adopts a level of formality ALWAYS appropriate to circumstances LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001 Argumentation X X X X X

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Can sustain views clearly by providing relevant ALWAYS explanations and arguments LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X

xxvii

APPENDIX 001 Co-operating Can relate own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers by: Giving feedback on and follow up statements and inferences and so help the development of the discussion.Helping the discussion along on familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001 RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

ALWAYS

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X X

Delivery

The delivery demonstrates consistent and accurate fluency, pronunciation and automaticity; minor ALWAYS difficulties in each area do not affect meaning and/or coherence or require listener effort to understand. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X

xxviii

xxix

APPENDIX 001 Organization RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates a clear and consistent method of ALWAYS organization LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C.

USUALLY X

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

X X X X X

APPENDIX 001 Unity synthesis RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Demonstrates topical and ALWAYS grammatical unity and/or synthesis; the relationship between ideas is clear and accurate both topically and grammatically X LEIDY J. X CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C.

xxx

APPENDIX 001 Language use RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Demonstrates clear and accurate language use and/or minor errors in word choice ALWAYS and/ or idiom usage and / or syntax do not affect meaning or coherence X LEIDY J. CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001 Awareness of connotative

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

levels of meaning Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. ALWAYS USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

X X X X X

xxxi

APPENDIX 001 Repair interaction Can backtrack restructure around difficulty LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001 Spontaneity RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE and a RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

ALWAYS X X X X X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

Describes the voluntary and natural speech characterized by highly unpredictable word sequences (in contrast to the activity of reading aloud ALWAYS where the word sequence is highly predictable) and speech disfluencies such us fillers, repetitions, restarts and pauses. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X X X X X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

xxxii

APPENDIX 001 Formality RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Adopts a level of formality ALWAYS appropriate to circumstances LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001 Argumentation X X X X X

RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER

Can sustain views clearly by ALWAYS providing relevant explanations and arguments LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X

X X X X

xxxiii

APPENDIX 001 Taking the floor RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to: Gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking. ALWAYS Initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking.Preface or intervene his/her remarks appropriately in order to get the floor. X LEIDY J. X CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C. APPENDIX 001

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

RATING GUIDE Co-operating RATING SCALE Can relate own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers by: Giving feedback on and follow up statements and inferences and so help the ALWAYS USUALLY SOMETIMES SELDOM development of the discussion.Helping the discussion along on familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc. X LEIDY J. X CARLOS F. X SOFIA G. X LILIANA S. X JULIAN C.

NEVER

xxxiv

APPENDIX 001 Asking for clarification RATING GUIDE RATING SCALE

Can ask follow-up questions to check that he/she has understood what a speaker ALWAYS intended to say, and get clarification of ambiguous points. LEIDY J. CARLOS F. SOFIA G. LILIANA S. JULIAN C. X X X X X

USUALLY

SOMETIMES SELDOM

NEVER

xxxv