Skip to main content

Circling

I sometimes come across teachers online who struggle with how to keep lessons in the target language. Circling is an important way of making this happen without losing the class.

I came across the term "circling" with reference to questioning technique some time ago when reading about TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling) , the north American language teaching approach closely associated with naturalistic or comprehensible input style teaching. In fact, what they call circling is nothing new. It was used in its most elaborate form in the Marc Gilbert books Cours Illustré de Français back in the 1960s. Circlng is, however, a convenient term to describe that form of artificial questioning language teachers use when practising new structures or vocabulary with classes.

Most of you will know what I mean. If you were teaching prepositions to near beginners it would go something like this:

Is the book on the table?
Is the book on the table or under the table?
The book is on the table. True or false?
Is the book on the chair?
Where is the book?

If you were introducing -er verbs in French to beginners you might have a pair of pupils David and Chris up to the front to draw simple animals on the board. David draws a cat. Chris draws an elephant.

David dessine un chat ou un éléphant? (Il dessine..)
Est-ce que David dessine un chat? (Non, il dessine...)
David, tu dessines un chat? (Oui, je dessine...)
Chris tu dessines un éléphant, oui ou non? (Oui)
Chris tu dessines un chat ou un éléphant? (Je dessine...)
David, qu'est-ce que tu dessines? (Je dessine...)

Tout le monde, David dessine un lion? (Non, il dessine...)
Chris dessine un tigre ou un éléphant? (Il dessine...)
Qu'est-ce qu'ils dessinent? (gesture both of them) Ils dessinent...

(Teacher draws a cat)
Nous dessinons un chat.
David, tu dessines un chat. Moi, je dessine un chat? Nous dessionons un éléphant? (Non, nous dessinons...)

etc etc

Some teachers may dislike the artificiality of such dialogue. I understand that. The whole class knows the book is on the table, why on earth ask about it?! But it is one of the prime ways we stick to the target language whilst maintaining comprehension (pictures and gesture help a lot), thus developing listening skill, vocabulary knowledge, oral proficiency and grammatical accuracy. Some would claim that the very repetition of structures helps students "internalise" or "fix" them, so they become part of their tacit knowledge. Good "circling" covers so many bases that it would be foolish to avoid it, I believe.

The artificiality of circling can, in fact, be played around with by using an exaggerated tone of voice or disbelieving facial expression. Students will happily play along with this, realising it's a bit of a game.

Even with more advanced learners you can use quite artificial dialogue. More advanced learners will feel patronised if you ask obvious questions. But this sort of activity works well:

e.g. "I am going to give you a deliberately false and stupid statement, correct it for me."
      "I am going to give you an answer; what was the question?"
      "I am going to give you two/three different statements. Which is the right one?"

As teachers my belief is that we should not avoid these types of artificial communication in the classroom. If the long term goal of producing proficient linguists is achieved in this way, let the ends justify the means.

Comments

  1. Steve, thank you as always for bringing context to Circling. I agree that the long results achieved through artificial questioning & communication justify the means! I recently made a video about my own perspective on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqvNYakkmg

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,