The document discusses the effectiveness of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Total Physical Response with Storytelling (TPRS) in enhancing language acquisition among non-native speakers (NNS). It details various communication strategies that learners employ to improve oral fluency and comprehension in a foreign language context. This study aims to explore the impact of these teaching methods on students' oral performance in a bilingual educational setting.

1. LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH
STORYTELLING:
A LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN A CLIL
ENVIRONMENT
Francisco Salgado-Robles 2nd Graduate Colloquium on Bilingual Education
Universidad Pablo de Olavide – Sevilla [04/05/2010]

2. Rationale
2
 Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) “refers to situations where subjects, or
parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign
language with dual-focused aims, namely the
learning of content, and the simultaneous
learning of a foreign language” (Marsh, 1994)
 E.g., the subject can be entirely unrelated to
language learning, such as science lessons
taught in English in a school in Spain

3. Rationale (Con‟t)
3
 Oral fluency gains
 The non-CLIL oriented research reveals that
learners (NNS) encounter inevitable difficulties
to communicate in an L2
 Teaching Proficiency through Reading and
Storytelling (TPRS) helps NNS become
proficient in speaking and understanding a new
language (Ray & Seely, 2004)

4. Teaching Proficiency through
4
Reading and Storytelling
 Combination of elements of Total Physical
Response (TPR) and storytelling styles to teach
language (Ray, 1990)
 Learning of an L2 in a natural way through
hearing stories told in the target language
 Effective in all sectors of education because
NNSs do not view their exposure to the L2 as
tedious “learning”, but they enjoy its acquisition
in an effortless and fun way

5. Teaching Proficiency through
5
Reading and Storytelling (Con‟t)
 NNSs “feel included and validated”
(Davidheiser, 2002) because stories are
personalized and comprehensible
 Reduction of the affective filter by not prompting
students to speak before they are ready
 Greater student retention, increase of fluency in
speaking and writing, and less failure rate on
tests

6. Communication Strategies
6
 “A mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in
situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be
shared” (Tarone,1980:288)
 Tarone‟s Taxonomy of CS (1981):
 Paraphrase:
 Approximation
 Word coinage
 Circumlocution
 Borrowing:
 Literal translation
 Language switch
 Appeal for assistance
 Mime
 Avoidance:
 Topic avoidance
 Message abandonment

7. Communication Strategies
7
(Con‟t)
 Paraphrase: Approximation
 The speaker substitutes the desired unknown target
language item for a new one, which is assumed to
share enough semantic features with it to be correctly
interpreted, e.g.:
 “pipe” for “water pipe”

8. Communication Strategies
8
(Con‟t)
 Paraphrase: Word coinage
 The learner makes up a new word following the target
language rules of derivation and composition, e.g.:
 “airball” for “balloon”

9. Communication Strategies
9
(Con‟t)
 Paraphrase: Circumlocution
 The learner describes an object or action instead of
using the appropriate target language item, e.g.:
 „it´s like ja- jacket without the arms?‟ (“waistcoat”)

10. Communication Strategies
10
(Con‟t)
 Borrowing: Literal translation
 The learner translates word for word from the native
language, e.g.:
 „It is not gold all that shines…‟

11. Communication Strategies
11
(Con‟t)
 Borrowing: Language switch
 The learner uses the native language term without
bothering to translate, e.g.:

12. Communication Strategies
12
(Con‟t)
 Borrowing: Appeal for assistance
 The learner asks the interlocutor for the correct term,
e.g.:
 …”how do you call this machine in English?” (“ATM”)

13. Communication Strategies
13
(Con‟t)
 Borrowing: Mime
 The learner uses non-verbal strategies in place of a
lexical item or action, e.g.:
 „(learner mimics knocking)‟ (“doorknocker”)

14. Communication Strategies
14
(Con‟t)
 Avoidance: Topic avoidance
 The speaker, lacking the necessary vocabulary to refer to
an object or action, avoids any mention to it, e.g.:
 „and he used to wear a… pair of huge pants‟
(“suspenders”)

15. Communication Strategies
15
(Con‟t)
 Avoidance: Message abandonment
 The speaker begins to talk about a concept but,
feeling unable to continue, stops before reaching their
communicative goal, e.g.:
 „… a shirt with … eh … umm … … I don‟t know‟ (“tie”)

16. Goal
16
 In the light of the increase of comprehension in
listening, speaking, reading and writing in a
regular foreign language classroom (McKay,
2000), this research proposal aims to examine
the impact of this teaching technique on NNSs‟
oral performance
 Given the limited research about interactional
situations within a CLIL environment, a look at
the development of communication strategies
employed in a bilingual context is, therefore,

17. Participants
17
 2nd CSE
 4th CSE Experimental Control Group
Group
 2nd BACH
CLIL students Non-CLIL students
Pretest
Midtest
Posttest

18. Tasks: Sharing some stories…
18
 2nd CSE: Social Sciences (3 hrs/week)
 European Population
 Urban Spaces
 Al-Andalus
 4th CSE: Social Sciences (3 hrs/week)
 The Enlightenment
 Effects of the Industrial Revolution in the European
Society
 World War I
 2nd BACH: History of Spain (3 hrs/week)
 Spain under the Bourbons
 Spanish Civil War
 Modern Spain

19. Assessment
19

20. Conclusions
20
 TPRS helps NNSs…
 … learn an L2 in a natural way through hearing stories
told in the target language
 … become proficient in speaking and understanding a
new language (Ray & Seely, 2004)
 In short, this study hopes to contribute to the
minimal research dedicated to the SLA and CLIL
areas from an interactionist approach

21. 21 Questions? Doubts? Comments?

22. 22
Francisco Salgado Robles
(fasalrob@alumno.upo.es)

23. References
23
 Davidheiser, J. (2002) Teaching German with TPRS (Total Physical Response
Storytelling). Die Unterrichtspraxis, 35.1, 25-35.
 Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual Education & Content and Language Integrated
Learning. International Association for Cross-cultural Communication. University
of Sorbonne. Paris.
 Ray, B. & Seely, C., (2002). Fluency Through TPR Storytelling: Achieving Real
Language Acquisition in School. Berkeley, CA: Command Performance Language
Institute.
 Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in
interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417–431.
 ________(1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy.
TESOL Quarterly,15, 285-295.