You might be wondering how oral language use and the multiliteracies approach to FL teaching and learning fit together given the central role that texts play in this approach.

If you recall, in the introductory module, we provided a broad definition of multiliteracies, one which gives primacy to the interpretation and creation of a range of texts from various perspectives; this includes the oral texts that students hear and create.

Within the multiliteracies-based approach, communication not only includes linguistic but also cognitive and sociocultural dimensions, and entails more than language use, by focusing on how meaning is constructed by various participants in a variety of contexts and genres.

As such this broad view stands apart from currently held notions of communicative language teaching (CLT), which place heavy emphasis on the development of interactive, transactional language use in generic contexts, a focus which oversimplifies purposes of language-in-use. Further, teacher-led oral communication in the FL classroom has traditionally followed a controlled question-and answer format (aka IRE, or Initiation, Response, Evaluation) or IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback), which research has shown, does not give learners the kinds of learning opportunities they need to develop awareness of the characteristics of various spoken genres and use them successfully in meaningful and relevant contexts.

In this module, our focus is on the development of oral interpersonal and presentational communication from a multiliteracies perspective in the FL classroom. Our choice to draw from the framework of communicative modes (World Readiness Standards for Learning Languages, 2015: http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/World-ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf) stems from the fact that in our broad definition of communication and multiliteracies, modalities are complementary rather than separate and as such, this framework provides a useful, albeit not perfect, starting point.

Speaking and the multiliteracies framework

Within the multiliteracies framework, speaking is an act of meaning design through textual creation (process and product). It is characterized by various modes of meaning-making including linguistic (e.g., delivery, intonation, vocabulary, syntax, etc.), gestural (e.g., movements of the arms, expressions of the face, gaze, clothing, etc.), and spatial (e.g., interpersonal distance, etc.) designs. It calls for attention to social and cultural contexts wherein communication is taking place and engages learners in interpretation, collaboration, problem solving and reflection. As such, speaking within the multiliteracies approach differs from the interactive, transactional use of language common to current CLT approaches. In the multiliteracies-based classroom, learners use oral language to take part in the activities of the classroom community where language practice and meaning-making are linked together and learners are using language patterns in novel ways and communicating about meaningful content.

It is therefore clear that texts play a crucial role in speaking in the multiliteracies-oriented classroom. They are crucial in helping learners become aware of the features of various spoken genres and communicate effectively in the contexts where these are used. Yet scripted dialogues continue to be commonly used as models of and for oral language use in the lower-level FL classroom. The use of these scripted dialogues is problematic on multiple levels. By foregrounding particular language forms, “the natural order of spoken discourse, from meaning to form, is reversed” (Burns, 1998, p. 106) in these scripted dialogues. They also do not model extended discourse and as such provide learners with only a limited and often skewed view of what language use in situated communication looks like. Finally, authentic oral texts are multimodal in nature and these scripted dialogues do not reflect this reality. Further, traditional teacher–led communication characterized by a contrived question-and-answer format (IRE also sometimes referred to as IRF) often continues to dominate the lower-level classroom and, as research has shown (e.g.,Hall, 2008; Thoms, 2011), deprives learners from the opportunity to develop characteristics of situated communication and use them in interactive contexts. Instructional conversations (ICs) are one instructional technique that provides opportunities for extended and collaborative teacher-student interaction. Goldenberg (1991) provides the following table in which he outlines the differences between direct instruction and instructional conversations.

Direct instruction vs. instructional conversations

In ICs, conversational characteristics such as open-ended questions and responsiveness merge with instructional characteristics such as thematic focus, promotion of language development, and direct instruction for the purpose of helping students understand and talk about concepts and language features that are essential to their learning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1991; Goldenberg, 1991; Todhunter, 2007; Weissberg, 2006). To capture the essence of instructional conversations, Goldenberg (1991) lists their elements, which he organizes into 2 groups (instructional (#1-5) and conversational (#6-10)) to reflect the major dimensions of ICs.

Instructional conversation: Instructional elements

Instructional conversation: Conversational elements

In the multiliteracies-oriented FL classroom, speaking does not happen in isolation. Not only does it often overlap with but it also supports listening, writing, and reading. Further, from a multiliteracies perspective, the concepts of community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) are central to oral language use. Learning in a multiliteracies perspective is viewed both as socially situated and collaborative and as such calls for a classroom context in which learners can build their knowledge of language and communicate in the FL in a range of contexts and genres. By creating a community of practice in the FL classroom where learning is socially situated, learners can apprentice in using the tools they need to engage in meaningful communication, through interaction, negotiation, and collaboration with their instructor and peers. Oral language use in communities of practice is not about “practicing” speaking, it is about participating in collaborative tasks to problem solve and reflect on language use and experiences. Essential to successful participation in communities of practice is scaffolding otherwise characterized as the ongoing support provided by a peer or more capable other.

Within a multiliteracies perspective on oral language use, the following elements play a crucial role: communication, design of meaning, texts, multimodality, communities of practice, and scaffolding. Each of these elements should be considered when planning muiltiliteracies-oriented lessons and tasks.

References
– Burns, A. (1998). Teaching speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 102–123.

– Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom application (Educational Practice Report No. 2). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Access here

– Hall, J. K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of learners in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

– Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

– Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, schooling, and learning in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

– Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in Social activity (Research Report No 2). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Access here

– Thoms, J. (2012). Classroom discourse in foreign language classrooms: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s8–s27.

– Todhunter, S. (2007). Instructional conversations in a high school Spanish class. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 604–621.

– Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

– Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in Applied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.

This module includes:
• A short webinar led by an expert on the topic
• A few core readings and a set of learning activities to consider before, during, and after reading
• A series of pedagogical applications
• A reflective teaching prompt which engages teachers to think back on their experience preparing and implementing a literacy-based lesson
• A few additional resources, which will include: 2-4 annotated references, including one that focuses on advanced instruction; links