TEXT III

CHANCES AND CHALLENGES

B. KUMARAVADIVELU San José State University San José, California, United States

The three shifts—from communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, from methodbased pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and from systemic discovery to critical discourse—constitute the major transition in TESOL methods during the past 15 years. This transition is still unfolding, opening up opportunities as well as challenges. The shift from CLT to TBLT has resulted in, and has benefited from, a body of empirical research in L2 acquisition to such an extent that TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented.

But still, vexing questions remain to be resolved. I highlight two major ones. The first pertains to the relationship between form and meaning and its attendant issue of how the learner’s attention resources are allocated. Calling the allocation of attention “the pivotal point” in L2 learning and teaching, Schmidt (2001) argues that it “largely determines the course of language development” The crux of the problem facing TBLT is how to make sure that learners focus their attention on grammatical forms while expressing their intended meaning.

That brings up yet another concern: the issue of context. One of the central claims of CLT as well as TBLT is that it can be contextualized to meet various learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations. It should be remembered that advocates of both CLT and TBLT have been using the term context mainly to refer to linguistic and pragmatic features of language and language use. They seldom include the broader social, cultural, political, and historical particularities. The inadequacy of CLT and TBLT in addressing such broader contextual issues has led some to call for a context approach to language teaching.

The shift from CLT to TBLT may be described as an internal shift within the boundaries of a method-based pedagogy. The shift from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, however, is seen as much more fundamental because it seeks to provide an alternative to method rather than an alternative method. There are, however, dissenting voices. Liu (1995) has argued that postmethod is not an alternative to method but only an addition to method. Likewise, Larsen-Freeman (2005) has questioned the concept of postmethod saying that “Kumaravadivelu’s macro-microstrategies constitute a method” (p. 24).

Because of its unfailing focus on the teacher, postmethod pedagogy has been described as “a compelling idea that emphasises greater judgment from teachers in each context and a better match between the means and the ends” (Crabbe, 2003, p. 16). It encourages the teacher “to engage in a carefully crafted process of diagnosis, treatment, and assessment” (Brown, 2002, p. 13). It also provides one possible way to be responsive to the lived experiences of learners and teachers, and to the local exigencies of learning and teaching. It “opens up new opportunities for the expertise of language teachers in periphery contexts to be recognized and valued” and “makes it more feasible for teachers to acknowledge and work with the diversity of the learners in their classrooms, guided by local assessments of students’ strategies for learning rather than by global directives from remote authorities” (Block & Cameroon, 2002b, p.10).

Yet another skepticism pertains to the investigative methods followed by the practitioners of critical discourse analysis, and, by extension, critical pedagogy (Toolan, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Toolan suggests that critical discourse analysts should be more critical in their argumentation by following robust research design and by providing stronger evidence. Dubbing (drubbing?) critical linguistics as “linguistics with a conscience and a cause,” Widdowson (1998, p. 136) questions its “less rigorous operation” (p. 137) that involves “a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever comes usefully to hand” (p. 137). Undoubtedly, these deserved admonitions demand serious attention. The criticism about research in critical pedagogy could, in fact, be extended to research in TESOL in general and TESOL methods in particular, warranting the search for robust research design. One should at the same time remember, however, that language teaching, not unlike anthropology, is “not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Searching for meaning, particularly at the initial stages of pedagogic exploration, runs the risk of becoming a speculative exercise. And today’s speculative exercise may lead to tomorrow’s specialized knowledge.

While the chances provided and the challenges posed by the three changing tracks in TESOL methods will keep us all busy for some time to come, there are other developments on the horizon that confront us. We have just started investigating the inevitable impact that the emerging processes of globalization and the renewed forces of imperialism will have on language teaching practices. But, that’s another story.

TEXT III

CHANCES AND CHALLENGES

B. KUMARAVADIVELU San José State University San José, California, United States

The three shifts—from communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, from methodbased pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and from systemic discovery to critical discourse—constitute the major transition in TESOL methods during the past 15 years. This transition is still unfolding, opening up opportunities as well as challenges. The shift from CLT to TBLT has resulted in, and has benefited from, a body of empirical research in L2 acquisition to such an extent that TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented.

But still, vexing questions remain to be resolved. I highlight two major ones. The first pertains to the relationship between form and meaning and its attendant issue of how the learner’s attention resources are allocated. Calling the allocation of attention “the pivotal point” in L2 learning and teaching, Schmidt (2001) argues that it “largely determines the course of language development” The crux of the problem facing TBLT is how to make sure that learners focus their attention on grammatical forms while expressing their intended meaning.

That brings up yet another concern: the issue of context. One of the central claims of CLT as well as TBLT is that it can be contextualized to meet various learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations. It should be remembered that advocates of both CLT and TBLT have been using the term context mainly to refer to linguistic and pragmatic features of language and language use. They seldom include the broader social, cultural, political, and historical particularities. The inadequacy of CLT and TBLT in addressing such broader contextual issues has led some to call for a context approach to language teaching.

The shift from CLT to TBLT may be described as an internal shift within the boundaries of a method-based pedagogy. The shift from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, however, is seen as much more fundamental because it seeks to provide an alternative to method rather than an alternative method. There are, however, dissenting voices. Liu (1995) has argued that postmethod is not an alternative to method but only an addition to method. Likewise, Larsen-Freeman (2005) has questioned the concept of postmethod saying that “Kumaravadivelu’s macro-microstrategies constitute a method” (p. 24).

Because of its unfailing focus on the teacher, postmethod pedagogy has been described as “a compelling idea that emphasises greater judgment from teachers in each context and a better match between the means and the ends” (Crabbe, 2003, p. 16). It encourages the teacher “to engage in a carefully crafted process of diagnosis, treatment, and assessment” (Brown, 2002, p. 13). It also provides one possible way to be responsive to the lived experiences of learners and teachers, and to the local exigencies of learning and teaching. It “opens up new opportunities for the expertise of language teachers in periphery contexts to be recognized and valued” and “makes it more feasible for teachers to acknowledge and work with the diversity of the learners in their classrooms, guided by local assessments of students’ strategies for learning rather than by global directives from remote authorities” (Block & Cameroon, 2002b, p.10).

Yet another skepticism pertains to the investigative methods followed by the practitioners of critical discourse analysis, and, by extension, critical pedagogy (Toolan, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Toolan suggests that critical discourse analysts should be more critical in their argumentation by following robust research design and by providing stronger evidence. Dubbing (drubbing?) critical linguistics as “linguistics with a conscience and a cause,” Widdowson (1998, p. 136) questions its “less rigorous operation” (p. 137) that involves “a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever comes usefully to hand” (p. 137). Undoubtedly, these deserved admonitions demand serious attention. The criticism about research in critical pedagogy could, in fact, be extended to research in TESOL in general and TESOL methods in particular, warranting the search for robust research design. One should at the same time remember, however, that language teaching, not unlike anthropology, is “not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Searching for meaning, particularly at the initial stages of pedagogic exploration, runs the risk of becoming a speculative exercise. And today’s speculative exercise may lead to tomorrow’s specialized knowledge.

While the chances provided and the challenges posed by the three changing tracks in TESOL methods will keep us all busy for some time to come, there are other developments on the horizon that confront us. We have just started investigating the inevitable impact that the emerging processes of globalization and the renewed forces of imperialism will have on language teaching practices. But, that’s another story.

TEXT III

CHANCES AND CHALLENGES

B. KUMARAVADIVELU San José State University San José, California, United States

The three shifts—from communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, from methodbased pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and from systemic discovery to critical discourse—constitute the major transition in TESOL methods during the past 15 years. This transition is still unfolding, opening up opportunities as well as challenges. The shift from CLT to TBLT has resulted in, and has benefited from, a body of empirical research in L2 acquisition to such an extent that TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented.

But still, vexing questions remain to be resolved. I highlight two major ones. The first pertains to the relationship between form and meaning and its attendant issue of how the learner’s attention resources are allocated. Calling the allocation of attention “the pivotal point” in L2 learning and teaching, Schmidt (2001) argues that it “largely determines the course of language development” The crux of the problem facing TBLT is how to make sure that learners focus their attention on grammatical forms while expressing their intended meaning.

That brings up yet another concern: the issue of context. One of the central claims of CLT as well as TBLT is that it can be contextualized to meet various learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations. It should be remembered that advocates of both CLT and TBLT have been using the term context mainly to refer to linguistic and pragmatic features of language and language use. They seldom include the broader social, cultural, political, and historical particularities. The inadequacy of CLT and TBLT in addressing such broader contextual issues has led some to call for a context approach to language teaching.

The shift from CLT to TBLT may be described as an internal shift within the boundaries of a method-based pedagogy. The shift from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, however, is seen as much more fundamental because it seeks to provide an alternative to method rather than an alternative method. There are, however, dissenting voices. Liu (1995) has argued that postmethod is not an alternative to method but only an addition to method. Likewise, Larsen-Freeman (2005) has questioned the concept of postmethod saying that “Kumaravadivelu’s macro-microstrategies constitute a method” (p. 24).

Because of its unfailing focus on the teacher, postmethod pedagogy has been described as “a compelling idea that emphasises greater judgment from teachers in each context and a better match between the means and the ends” (Crabbe, 2003, p. 16). It encourages the teacher “to engage in a carefully crafted process of diagnosis, treatment, and assessment” (Brown, 2002, p. 13). It also provides one possible way to be responsive to the lived experiences of learners and teachers, and to the local exigencies of learning and teaching. It “opens up new opportunities for the expertise of language teachers in periphery contexts to be recognized and valued” and “makes it more feasible for teachers to acknowledge and work with the diversity of the learners in their classrooms, guided by local assessments of students’ strategies for learning rather than by global directives from remote authorities” (Block & Cameroon, 2002b, p.10).

Yet another skepticism pertains to the investigative methods followed by the practitioners of critical discourse analysis, and, by extension, critical pedagogy (Toolan, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Toolan suggests that critical discourse analysts should be more critical in their argumentation by following robust research design and by providing stronger evidence. Dubbing (drubbing?) critical linguistics as “linguistics with a conscience and a cause,” Widdowson (1998, p. 136) questions its “less rigorous operation” (p. 137) that involves “a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever comes usefully to hand” (p. 137). Undoubtedly, these deserved admonitions demand serious attention. The criticism about research in critical pedagogy could, in fact, be extended to research in TESOL in general and TESOL methods in particular, warranting the search for robust research design. One should at the same time remember, however, that language teaching, not unlike anthropology, is “not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Searching for meaning, particularly at the initial stages of pedagogic exploration, runs the risk of becoming a speculative exercise. And today’s speculative exercise may lead to tomorrow’s specialized knowledge.

While the chances provided and the challenges posed by the three changing tracks in TESOL methods will keep us all busy for some time to come, there are other developments on the horizon that confront us. We have just started investigating the inevitable impact that the emerging processes of globalization and the renewed forces of imperialism will have on language teaching practices. But, that’s another story.

TEXT III

CHANCES AND CHALLENGES

B. KUMARAVADIVELU San José State University San José, California, United States

The three shifts—from communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, from methodbased pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and from systemic discovery to critical discourse—constitute the major transition in TESOL methods during the past 15 years. This transition is still unfolding, opening up opportunities as well as challenges. The shift from CLT to TBLT has resulted in, and has benefited from, a body of empirical research in L2 acquisition to such an extent that TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented.

But still, vexing questions remain to be resolved. I highlight two major ones. The first pertains to the relationship between form and meaning and its attendant issue of how the learner’s attention resources are allocated. Calling the allocation of attention “the pivotal point” in L2 learning and teaching, Schmidt (2001) argues that it “largely determines the course of language development” The crux of the problem facing TBLT is how to make sure that learners focus their attention on grammatical forms while expressing their intended meaning.

That brings up yet another concern: the issue of context. One of the central claims of CLT as well as TBLT is that it can be contextualized to meet various learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations. It should be remembered that advocates of both CLT and TBLT have been using the term context mainly to refer to linguistic and pragmatic features of language and language use. They seldom include the broader social, cultural, political, and historical particularities. The inadequacy of CLT and TBLT in addressing such broader contextual issues has led some to call for a context approach to language teaching.

The shift from CLT to TBLT may be described as an internal shift within the boundaries of a method-based pedagogy. The shift from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, however, is seen as much more fundamental because it seeks to provide an alternative to method rather than an alternative method. There are, however, dissenting voices. Liu (1995) has argued that postmethod is not an alternative to method but only an addition to method. Likewise, Larsen-Freeman (2005) has questioned the concept of postmethod saying that “Kumaravadivelu’s macro-microstrategies constitute a method” (p. 24).

Because of its unfailing focus on the teacher, postmethod pedagogy has been described as “a compelling idea that emphasises greater judgment from teachers in each context and a better match between the means and the ends” (Crabbe, 2003, p. 16). It encourages the teacher “to engage in a carefully crafted process of diagnosis, treatment, and assessment” (Brown, 2002, p. 13). It also provides one possible way to be responsive to the lived experiences of learners and teachers, and to the local exigencies of learning and teaching. It “opens up new opportunities for the expertise of language teachers in periphery contexts to be recognized and valued” and “makes it more feasible for teachers to acknowledge and work with the diversity of the learners in their classrooms, guided by local assessments of students’ strategies for learning rather than by global directives from remote authorities” (Block & Cameroon, 2002b, p.10).

Yet another skepticism pertains to the investigative methods followed by the practitioners of critical discourse analysis, and, by extension, critical pedagogy (Toolan, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Toolan suggests that critical discourse analysts should be more critical in their argumentation by following robust research design and by providing stronger evidence. Dubbing (drubbing?) critical linguistics as “linguistics with a conscience and a cause,” Widdowson (1998, p. 136) questions its “less rigorous operation” (p. 137) that involves “a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever comes usefully to hand” (p. 137). Undoubtedly, these deserved admonitions demand serious attention. The criticism about research in critical pedagogy could, in fact, be extended to research in TESOL in general and TESOL methods in particular, warranting the search for robust research design. One should at the same time remember, however, that language teaching, not unlike anthropology, is “not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Searching for meaning, particularly at the initial stages of pedagogic exploration, runs the risk of becoming a speculative exercise. And today’s speculative exercise may lead to tomorrow’s specialized knowledge.

While the chances provided and the challenges posed by the three changing tracks in TESOL methods will keep us all busy for some time to come, there are other developments on the horizon that confront us. We have just started investigating the inevitable impact that the emerging processes of globalization and the renewed forces of imperialism will have on language teaching practices. But, that’s another story.

TEXT III

CHANCES AND CHALLENGES

B. KUMARAVADIVELU San José State University San José, California, United States

The three shifts—from communicative language teaching to taskbased language teaching, from methodbased pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and from systemic discovery to critical discourse—constitute the major transition in TESOL methods during the past 15 years. This transition is still unfolding, opening up opportunities as well as challenges. The shift from CLT to TBLT has resulted in, and has benefited from, a body of empirical research in L2 acquisition to such an extent that TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented.

But still, vexing questions remain to be resolved. I highlight two major ones. The first pertains to the relationship between form and meaning and its attendant issue of how the learner’s attention resources are allocated. Calling the allocation of attention “the pivotal point” in L2 learning and teaching, Schmidt (2001) argues that it “largely determines the course of language development” The crux of the problem facing TBLT is how to make sure that learners focus their attention on grammatical forms while expressing their intended meaning.

That brings up yet another concern: the issue of context. One of the central claims of CLT as well as TBLT is that it can be contextualized to meet various learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations. It should be remembered that advocates of both CLT and TBLT have been using the term context mainly to refer to linguistic and pragmatic features of language and language use. They seldom include the broader social, cultural, political, and historical particularities. The inadequacy of CLT and TBLT in addressing such broader contextual issues has led some to call for a context approach to language teaching.

The shift from CLT to TBLT may be described as an internal shift within the boundaries of a method-based pedagogy. The shift from method-based pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, however, is seen as much more fundamental because it seeks to provide an alternative to method rather than an alternative method. There are, however, dissenting voices. Liu (1995) has argued that postmethod is not an alternative to method but only an addition to method. Likewise, Larsen-Freeman (2005) has questioned the concept of postmethod saying that “Kumaravadivelu’s macro-microstrategies constitute a method” (p. 24).

Because of its unfailing focus on the teacher, postmethod pedagogy has been described as “a compelling idea that emphasises greater judgment from teachers in each context and a better match between the means and the ends” (Crabbe, 2003, p. 16). It encourages the teacher “to engage in a carefully crafted process of diagnosis, treatment, and assessment” (Brown, 2002, p. 13). It also provides one possible way to be responsive to the lived experiences of learners and teachers, and to the local exigencies of learning and teaching. It “opens up new opportunities for the expertise of language teachers in periphery contexts to be recognized and valued” and “makes it more feasible for teachers to acknowledge and work with the diversity of the learners in their classrooms, guided by local assessments of students’ strategies for learning rather than by global directives from remote authorities” (Block & Cameroon, 2002b, p.10).

Yet another skepticism pertains to the investigative methods followed by the practitioners of critical discourse analysis, and, by extension, critical pedagogy (Toolan, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Toolan suggests that critical discourse analysts should be more critical in their argumentation by following robust research design and by providing stronger evidence. Dubbing (drubbing?) critical linguistics as “linguistics with a conscience and a cause,” Widdowson (1998, p. 136) questions its “less rigorous operation” (p. 137) that involves “a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever comes usefully to hand” (p. 137). Undoubtedly, these deserved admonitions demand serious attention. The criticism about research in critical pedagogy could, in fact, be extended to research in TESOL in general and TESOL methods in particular, warranting the search for robust research design. One should at the same time remember, however, that language teaching, not unlike anthropology, is “not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Searching for meaning, particularly at the initial stages of pedagogic exploration, runs the risk of becoming a speculative exercise. And today’s speculative exercise may lead to tomorrow’s specialized knowledge.

While the chances provided and the challenges posed by the three changing tracks in TESOL methods will keep us all busy for some time to come, there are other developments on the horizon that confront us. We have just started investigating the inevitable impact that the emerging processes of globalization and the renewed forces of imperialism will have on language teaching practices. But, that’s another story.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.