Sample Annotated Literature Review

Nagivation Guide

Click on the titles of the grey boxes below to expand and read the purposes of each generic stage. Click on the links to read the sections closely. Click on the numbers to read the comments from the expert. For the highlighted items, place the mouse over to read the comments.

 

 

Authentic Interactions and Course Books Materials

Background

[1] [2]Over the past two to three decades, with the advent of discourse analysis, conversation analysis and corpus research on spoken discourse and the advancement in technology, the teaching of spoken language has received considerable and growing concerns.

[3] However, when researchers compared data collected from authentic interactions among native English speakers with the dialogues from textbooks, they found the models presented in textbooks often lack real features of spoken language such as discourse markers, hesitation devices, ellipses and so on (Carter, 1998; Burns, 2001); the materials presented in textbooks seem contrived compared to naturally occurring interactions. The model dialogues in the chapters are nearly perfect and one can seldom find hesitations, false starts or self-corrections in them. the models presented in textbooks often Some researchers even criticise that learners are often presented with isolated “useful expressions” only to perform various speech acts (Crandall and Basturkmen, 2004) which cannot allow them to communicate effectively.

However on the contrary, the models presented in textbooks often Widdowson (1998, p.714) argues that the objective of developing a language learning task is notto “replicate or even simulate what goes on in normal uses of language. Indeed, the more they seem to do so, the less effective they are likely to be.”

Purpose

[3] Given the opposing views on the design of learning materials or tasks, in this paper, I shall review relevant research carried out on authentic interactions in spoken language, in particular in business meeting settings, and the implications to pedagogy. Then I shall compare them with the materials on the teaching of meetings in course books currently used by the business English modules which I am teaching. The purpose of making this comparison is to find out the missing links between authentic interactions in meetings and the materials presented in the course books, and to what extent do the missing links affect learners’ performance. Recommendations on how to adapt materials for speaking will also be discussed at the end of this paper.

Method

[4] In order to have a clearer picture of the real interactions exist in business meetings, recent literature (within the past 15 years) regarding investigations on meetings is reviewed. Sample materials are taken from two course books, namely Communicating in Business (Simon, 2004) (hereinafter referred to as “CiB”) and Working in English (Jones, 2001) (hereinafter referred to as “WiE”) for analysis.

Participating in a Meeting as a Non-Native English Speaker

[5] In a recent study on the use of English as a lingua franca in international business meetings conducted by Rogerson-Revell (2008), it is revealed that there is unequal participation among Native English Speakers (NSE) and Non-Native English Speakers (NNSE). In her study, data from three meetings with a mixture of NSEs and NNSEs conducted within a European Organisation were collected. In those meetings, the ratio of NSEs to NNSEs participants was approximately 1:3 to 1:4. Surprisingly, analysis of the data shows that the proportion of inactive (non-speaking) NNSEs was much higher than that of NSEs. Findings on participation also show that some participants expressed frustration towards the NSEs who had the tendency to dominate the meetings. Yet, on the whole, it is concluded that the meetings were conducted in a “meaningful, orderly and harmonious” way (p.349). Despite the generic and linguistic limitations confronted by NNSEs,it is evident that there are still a number of “good practices”, such as interactive resources and strategies, demonstrated by both NSEs and NNSEs, with an aim to achieve the objectives of the meetings. Below is a summary of certain good strategies used in the meetings:

Strategy	Description
(1) Ignoring linguistic anomalies	Focusing on the main message content, rather than the form of language used. Tolerating linguistic anomalies and ambiguities.
(2)Admitting the lack of linguistic competence	Saying explicitly that the discussion is not understood or ideas cannot be expressed properly.
(3) Inviting opinions	Asking someone who are quiet or who may have views to speak.
(4) Signalling misunderstanding	Asking explicitly for explanation.

 

As the above strategies observed in authentic meetings are used in order to facilitate better international business communication, are the same found in the teaching materials used in course books?

In the two course books under study, it is observed that the writers designed learning tasks according to the functions which language can perform in a meeting’s setting. For example, in CiB, each unit is designed with tasks for students to learn how to establish purpose of meetings, interrupt and handle interruptions, ask and give clarifications, etc; while in WiE, each unit is designed with tasks for students to learn how to discuss and exchange ideas, work with the agenda and how to negotiate in order to reach an agreement. The above learning objectives are achieved by students listening to recordings of conversations or completing reading comprehension exercise to learn more about the background (setting the field), then a number of “useful expressions” are catergorised under specific functions and introduced, and at the end there is usually a practice task which allows students to practise the “useful expressions” being introduced. Tables below show the lists of the functions of “useful expressions” introduced by the course books under study:

Communicating in Business (Sweeney, 2004)
Opening the meeting Stating objectives Calling on a speaker Summarizing Closing the meeting Asking for opinion Handling interruptions Clarifying Referring to other speakers Ending the meeting	Introducing the agenda Introducing discussion Controlling the meeting Moving the discussion on Stating opinion Interrupting Asking for clarification Checking that the clarification is sufficient Delaying decisions

 

Working in English (Jones, 2001)
Asking for views Agreeing Socializing Ending Managing the meeting Interrupting	Giving your view Disagreeing Starting Next meeting Suggesting

If the above language functions presented in the course books are compared with the strategies suggested in Rogerson-Revell’s (2008) study, we can see that much emphasis has been put on “inviting opinions” and “signaling misunderstanding”, nevertheless, “ignoring linguistic anomalies” and “admitting the lack of linguistic competence” are not even mentioned. In fact, to ask for opinions and to make clarification are basic skills for survival in workplace meetings no matter one is a NSE or a NNSE; however, it is obvious that even in the listening recording both course books intentionally recorded conversations of business people with different accents (e.g. British, American, Japanese, Indian, etc.), reflecting the reality of having a meeting with people of different nationalities (NSEs and NNSEs), and it is clear that the target users of these books are L2 learners, the necessary skills for a NNSE, who may not be so linguistically competent, to cope with difficult situations in a business meeting are nowhere to be found.

Course books writers may argue, provided that the content and length of course books are often limited, priorities should be given to linguistic features which are more commonly used and more important. Indeed, both the course books under study are resourceful in terms of common language used in meetings, but if we are to determine which linguistic feature is more important, we must consider again carefully the functions of a meeting. I believe that to be able to get the message across is one of the main purposes of having a meeting. As a NNSE, very often one should be able to extract the key message delivered by the speaker in the meeting without having to decipher the complex structures which the speaker is using, if possible; similarly, one may also resort to “ignoring the linguistic anomalies” of NNSEs and to just focus on the message content. I believe this commonly adopted strategy (Rogerson-Revell, 2008) is of equal importance compared to functions like “giving opinion” or “asking for clarification”, and it should be given some emphasis in the learning materials.

Micro-level Vs Macro-level structures

In an analysis of speech acts performance in a corpus of workplace conversations, Koester (2002) finds that speech acts, even direct ones, are seldom performed directly, for example, making suggestions, agreeing, disagreeing and asking for information. In her study of speech acts based on a 34,000-word spoken discourse, she recommends that “speech acts should be seen not as isolated phenomena, but as unfolding in discourse. Studying naturally occurring conversations can provide valuable insights into how such acts or communicative functions are performed within longer stretches of discourse” (Koester, 2002, p,169).

During the process of “unfolding”, Koester (2002) discovers that when people are giving advice or suggestions, their words are often coated with a certain degree of tentativeness and indirectness. This can be achieved by using modal verbs, modal adverb with a hedge and a modal lexical verb. In addition, “frames” are often observed, especially at the beginning of a conversation to signal the intention. According to Tannen (1993, cited in Koester, 2002, p.175), “a “frame” is a participant’s sense of what kind of ‘activity’ is being engaged in through talk. Participants’ frames may be signaled through a number of linguistic devices.”

So, the question is, do course books attempt to show learners how to “unfold” speech acts or create speech acts which require “unfolding”? Koester (2002) illustrates clearly in her article that in order to teach speech acts, it is crucial to focus on both micro-level (e.g. adjacency pairs) and macro-level (i.e. overall structure of the discourse) of discourse structures.

At present, many course books, including CiB and WiE, already include plenty of “mini-dialogue” practices which allow students to give appropriate responses as well as initiate them. For instance, in the unit discussing interruption in meetings in CiB (See Appendix I) there is an incomplete dialogue in which learners need to respond properly with the expressions acquired previously in order to handle interruption. This task is then followed by a complete model version of the dialogue as demonstration. This is actually just one of the many examples which course books have carefully designed tasks to help learners practice speech acts at the micro-level.

At the macro-level, however, there is little evidence that the course books attempt to show learners a broader view of the meeting discourse except for allowing learners to practise role-playing a meeting, assuming that learners are able to associate all the linguistic features introduced and apply them altogether(joint-construction). The fact is, on many occasions in my classroom, students were only able to demonstrate the use of a few linguistic features like using a question “shall we start now?” to open a meeting or saying “I agree with you” for agreement. In Koester’s (2002) paper, she suggests that learners “need exposure to and opportunity to practise the discourse patterns of different types of conversation…One important aspect of pragmatic competence in this connection is the ability to make discourse frames explicit: to signal (e.g. through meta-statements such as I have a question) what type of discourse one wishes to engage in; particularly in task-focused interactions such as service encounters and workplace conversations” (p.178). The notions of “exposure” and “opportunity to practice” are also supported by Thornbury and Slade (2006) when they investigate the development of conversational fluency: “learners need exposure and instruction and opportunities for meaningful practice” (p.238).

Conclusion

Although there are more than the two missing links listed above between authentic interactions and course books materials, for instance, some of the many features worth-investigating would be the use of discourse markers, lexical density, formality, etc., they are not within the scope of this paper to discuss. But we can still see that there are certain linguistic features which we can introduce to NNSEs in order to help them develop communicative competence in the workplace. Moreover, many course book writers nowadays have begun to deconstruct functions performed in different spoken discourse so as to allow learners to have clear learning objectives. However, it may be more desirable to give more guidance to learners, especially inexperienced ones, on modeling and construction of the conversations at a macro-level until they are confident enough to do it independently.

Recommendations

Both Koester (2002) and Crandall & Basturkmen (2004) recommend that authentic conversations or transcripts can be used (e.g. discourse analysis, listening practice) in order to raise learners’ awareness in the norms of authentic interactions. Though Crandall & Basturkmen’s study suggests very positive results of a group of overseas university students in New Zealand analysing discourse, and students were able to make “links between what was being taught in class, what the norms were in their culture, and their experiences in New Zealand”, I am skeptical that the same would happen in a classroom with students of low proficiency and low awareness. So, in order to stimulate awareness in learners, it may be more effective if we can develop materials in different modes, for example videos of different real-life interactions or listening tasks, with follow-up awareness-raising questions/discussions. Teachers may complain that the resources provided in course books are never enough to fulfill the demands of our students, fortunately, the new trends in media like YouTube and podcasts may act as useful supplement to our students’ learning.