Below is a simulation, through a student's eyes, of typical reactions from our students to the videoing of their conversations. We think you will find it easy to conceptualize the procedure from a student's perspective. The view comes from multiple forms of student feedback and our own observations of the program.
Imagine for a moment that you are studying a second language (L2). On the first day your teacher says you will be videoed regularly conversing in L2. For the next class you are to bring a new VHS cassette with your name on it. This sounds interesting and scary to you. The teacher gives you some target material to practice but you are not really sure how to practice.
On the first video-day you are very relieved to find that while the four people chosen at random to sit before two video cameras are being recorded everybody else is having conversations, too, and you are changing partners every five minutes. This allows you to rehearse your conversation several times before you are called up to record. Immediately after recording you are given back your cassette.
By the end of class you have spoken about the topic with many partners and learned a few things that your partners said. You used some Ll but most was in L2 and you made some new friends. Your homework is to transcribe your conversation and to answer a few questions (e.g., What did you like? What can you correct? What did your partner say/do that you would like to say/do?) It's with curiosity and a bit of dread that you go home to watch your conversation.
Watching that first video is indeed embarrassing. You look and sound funny. You also notice that you said a few things that you like. And you notice things you would like to improve. Transcribing the conversation is hard but it does allow you to notice a few errors you can correct.
In the next class, you sit with the person you did the recording with and read each other's transcript. You notice that your partner had more words in some places than you did, corrected things you didn't, and heard things differently. Your partner also noticed differences. This is interesting. You notice you can learn from each other and you want to do better next time.
After a few weeks, you learn that the more you prepare for the videoing, the better your conversations are, the more fun you have and the more you learn. On one video-day, after five or six weeks, your teacher gives your partner Akiko's video back to you (and yours to Akiko) and asks you to view all the conversations and to write a letter to her mentioning improvements and offering further suggestions. You have fun looking at Akiko's five conversations with different classmates, and the last with you. You notice she is more relaxed and talkative in later conversations. You would like to "model" some things. In the next class, you give back cassettes and exchange letters. You were a bit worried but Akiko's letter to you makes you very happy because it says you are improving. You feel like speaking even more now.
As the semester continues, you notice some topics are easy to talk about and others difficult. You learn a few strategies that help you speak more fluently--phrases for gaining time to think, for expressing yourself even when you don't have the perfect words, for asking your partners when you don't understand something, etc. You also continue to notice how your partners say things that you could say. Video-day becomes your favorite day because you get to talk to lots of classmates and you notice you are speaking in English most of the time.
At the end of the term, you review all conversations and write a report comparing them and saying how you would like to improve even more. You are amazed at the difference between the first and last conversations. It cannot be denied that you are more comfortable speaking, your phrases are longer, you continue talking with partners without awkward pauses, and, best of all, you can see that you are having fun.
Background
The video procedure we describe here can stimulate learning in many ways. The changing of partners for practicing conversations gives our learners many opportunities to interact with other learners who can naturally provide each other with comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) and yet at the same time display different abilities and language to learn through cognitive comparisons (Ellis, 1995). The repeated practice with different partners enhances memory, automatizes patterns (Williams & Burden, 1997) and does this meaningfully because learners are practicing each time with a different partner. And because they are practicing for a real purpose - the video event - with a different topic each week, their output is continually being pushed (Swain, 1995) as they seek more fluency and accuracy. This environment of repetition also provides plentiful opportunities for focusing on form in moderation (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thurrell, 1997; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1996) and for noticing language at many levels of discourse (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Noticing is intensified even more when students are given a video of their conversation that they must watch very carefully in order to transcribe. Finally, Bandura's (1986) social learning theory stresses that we learn through observing and interacting with peers in practice. It is important for teachers to allow ample opportunities for this to happen.
Content
The authors have been experimenting with Videoing Conversations for Self-Evaluation (VCSE) for the past three years (previously referred to as Learner Self Evaluated Videoing, LSEV in Murphey & Kenny, 1995, 1996,1998). We have explored numerous ways to enhance the procedure and to teach a variety of target conversation strategies such as feedback phrases, conversation gambits, and ways of dealing with problems (e.g. asking for repetition).
The procedure seems capable of satisfying a variety of teaching foci. While we sometimes share similar topics and goals (e.g., we both have used narratives), we often target different things in our classes. For example, Woo has chosen many of her topics according to specific grammar structures such as, "What is the best advice you ever got?" to practice reported speech. Murphey often selects topics for their "learning to learn" focus, so "Describing near peer role models" attempted to get students to notice and model other students. A sampling of other topics includes: self-introductions, weekends, an embarrassing story, mistake stories, and "Three things I can do to make myself happy." We feel that the VCSE procedure could be used to enhance the acquisition of any teacher's pedagogical agenda, be it thematic or content based, or function and form focused.
Equipment
Our video hardware consists of two cameras (Hi8 handycams), each one attached to two VHS players and a monitor. Each pair of VHS players and monitor are on trolleys for moving them to the classrooms on "video-day" (see Figure 1).With this system, we can videotape four students in pairs having conversations at the same time. The four VHS players allows all four students to have a copy of their conversation. The teacher, as well, has a copy of all the conversations from the master Hi8 cassettes in the two cameras which are kept running throughout the class period. In total, that makes six cassettes recording at a time!
The Basic Procedure
We find it useful to divide the procedure into three time periods: pre-videoing, video-day, and post-videoing activities. We have used VCSE in classes that meet once a week and classes that meet three times a week. The frequency of videoing is up to the teacher. We do find that doing it only once is not useful as the students usually need several times to get used to it. We have seen the most positive results in classes that meet three times a week and videotaped once a week for approximately 25 weeks over two university semesters.
Figure 1: VCSE Equipment Set Up
Please note that in this configuration, two VHS players are under each of the Monitors which are mounted on trolleys and rolled into the room. In this particular room, one camera is on the teacher's desk at the front of the room and another placed on a student desk in front of monitor 1. The desk arrangement is typical of most university classrooms and students get up se and change partners ever 5 minutes.
Pre-Videoing
In preparation classes, we explain the conversation topic (e.g., An embarrassing story, Three things that make me happy, etc.) and the new target material (e.g., conversation strategies, vocabulary, and certain grammatical structures) for the week to be used on video day. They can practice having conversations on the week's topic using the new target expressions in pairs with other classmates during class. Outside of class, to practice their conversations more, they may be given telephone homework (Murphey, 1992). They are also encouraged to practice for their conversation by talking to themselves in their free time at home, on the bus, while getting ready for school, etc., something called "self-talk" (Murphey, 1998, pp.15). This helps them to further recycle the material.
Video-Day
On "video-day," students will have already prepared and practiced for the week's conversation topic both inside and outside of class, so they are ready to be videotaped. As they come into class on this day, they immediately place their video cassettes on the teacher's desk. The students' video cassettes contain all the conversations they have recorded so far and are always wound to the end of the last conversation (to prevent old conversations from being erased). The teacher chooses cassettes at random to make partners for the recordings and then begins the videotaping by calling up two pairs, also randomly chosen, to sit at the desks where the cameras have been set-up. While these two pairs are being videotaped, the other students in the class are practicing in pairs with classmates they have found on their own. Generally, these students are scattered throughout the classroom, with some standing and some sitting and all practicing intensively so, as a result, no one is "on stage" being watched by others. Every five minutes, when two new pairs of students are called up to be videotaped, the other students in the class also change partners to continue practicing. The pairs that have just been videotaped receive their videotapes immediately after finishing and then reintegrate themselves back with the students that are practicing. At the end, everyone in the class has their conversation on their video cassette.
Post-Video Activities
The procedure allows students to get their video cassettes back immediately after recording, that is, when they are especially curious and motivated to see them. They can go home or to the school's media center to watch them. In order to focus the students to get the most out of the videos, we have experimented with several formats for post-videoing activities:
- Report/Questionnaires. Students respond to a set of questions concerning their conversations (What did you notice that you did well? that you may have said wrong [and how would you correct it]? that your partner said that you might like to use? How can you improve your conversation? What are your goals for next week's videotaping?)
- Transcriptions. Students transcribe their conversations combined with some of the questions above.
- Watching a Partner's Video. After a few weeks have passed, when students have recorded several conversations on their tape, they take the tape of that day's partner that they were videoed with and watch all the conversations. They are asked to write a short letter to their partner saying how they have improved, noticing things they would like to "borrow," and giving advice. This activity adds a helpful degree of social risk which gets them to prepare even more as they realize that other students will be occasionally viewing and commenting on their tapes.
- Term Papers. At the end of a semester, students compare the first and last conversations and write about how they have changed.
Four Advantages
First, learners discover that regular recordings motivate them to practice and recycle personally relevant material for planned "performance events" in front of the camera (Murphey, 1996a). These performance events typically provoke excessive anxiety at first and then become more exciting with facilitative anxiety (Alpert & Haber, 1960). This facilitative anxiety is maintained by not knowing in what order they will be called and who their partner will be. Reminding them that their partners are depending upon them to be pre-pared, that the teacher has a copy of their conversation on the video camera's Hi8 tape, and that they will have to spend time watching it and transcribing it, all contribute to motivating students positively.
Second, the recording "captures" the event, allowing for repeated viewing and the noticing of linguistic and nonlinguistic features in the acts of communication (Ellis, 1995; Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Transcribing requires close inspection and repeated viewing of details. We have been pleasantly surprised at the students' ability to self-correct and be self-critical as they make goals for subsequent recordings.
Third, the viewing allows for closer inspection of other learners who may become near peer role models (Murphey, 1996b) and whose selected behavior may be emulated (Bandura, 1986). These last two advantages are enhanced by doing transcriptions, sharing them with their partners, exchanging videos with partners and writing letters saying how they have improved, and by their review of all conversations at the end of a semester.
Fourth, the fact that they have a record of their progress is concrete proof of their learning. The videotape confirms the work they have done and motivates them to do more. By comparing recordings and collaboratively learning from their partners, they realize they can take more control of their own learning. At the end of the term, students overwhelmingly endorse the videoing and want more of it (Murphey & Kenny, 1996).
The recordings can also be monitored by teachers, who might provide further quality feedback to students. However, we have found the main advantage comes from observing students on video-day and seeing their transcriptions. The transcriptions give teachers an idea of the kinds of mistakes (grammar, usage, and otherwise) students are making as a group. More importantly, we can see the extent to which our teaching has been incorporated into student performance, and make adjustments accordingly.
Problems and Options
As with any technology, occasional breakdowns and "bugs" in the system are inevitable. The setting up and taking down of the equipment can increase the likelihood of such breakdowns. Ideally a room where the equipment is permanently installed is best. Keeping an extra supply of blank videotapes that students can purchase on days when they forget is also wise.
VCSE can be varied by adjusting the amount of equipment (one handycam with two VHS players would seem to be the minimum to avoid the labor-intensive copying of student tapes), the frequency of use (some colleagues video monthly or bimonthly rather than weekly), the length of videoed sequences, and the number of students recorded (a certain number each week). For private tutoring VCSE is ideal, and we suspect private schools as well as foreign teachers learning Japanese in Japan will benefit from this method.
Conclusion
The importance of VCSE lies in its ability to create an environment where learning can take place by stimulating practice, increasing motivation, creating opportunities for noticing (in many ways), and allowing students to model peers collaboratively. Our regular observations and the feedback of our students in transcripts and reports (Murphey & Kenny, 1998) tell us that students increase their conversational fluency, accuracy, and enjoyment. When rapid improvement in oral performance is the goal, VCSE can stimulate progress in a multitude of exciting ways which conventional teaching can only begin to address. SLA theory points toward such procedures and VCSE could also be a way to facilitate more quality SLA research. The benefits we have discovered and continue to discover using VCSE for developing our students' progress have us comparing VCSE to a diamond in the rough. We predict that, as video equipment becomes more affordable, VCSE will become not only a favorite way of teaching for teachers and researching for researchers, but also much preferred by students who become take-charge autonomous learners through the process. As one student wrote in her final report, "I am going to keep this video forever because it is not only my record but my teacher of learning."
Acknowledgment
Thanks to Valerie Benson, Laura MacGregor, and several TLT readers for comments on previous drafts. We would like to acknowledge generous Pache I-A grants from Nanzan University which made this research possible.
Note
A 23-minute semi-professionally produced video for teacher training purposes was made after the first year of this project and is available from the authors. You are also welcome to sit in and observe one of the video-days. Contact the authors. Tim Murphey, <mits@ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp>; Linda Woo,' <linda@ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp>; Nanzan University, 18 Yamazato-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya 466-8673.
References
Alpert, R., & Haber, R. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207-221.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31, 141-152.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 29, 87-102,
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19, 207-227.
Murphey, T. (1992). Telephoning homework. The Language Teacher 16 (11), 71.
Murphey, T. (1996a). Increasing performance events in language learning: Examples and theory to play with. Nanzan University LT Briefs #5, 22.
Murphey, T. (1996b). Near peer role models. Teacher Talking to Teacher, JALT Teacher Education SIG Newsletter, 4 (3), 21-22.
Murphey, T. (1998). Language Hungry! Tokyo: MacMillian LanguageHouse.
Murphey, T., & Kenny, T. (1995). Learner self-evaluated video for improving conversation skills: Preliminary results. Academia 59,163201, September. (Nanzan University).
Murphey, T., & Kenny, T. (1996). Learner self-evaluated videoing (LSEV). In van Troyer, et. al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the JALT 1995 International Conference on Language Teaching/Learning, pp 198 - 202.
Murphey, T., & Kenny, T. (1998). Videoing conversations for self evaluation. JALT Journal 20 (1), 126-140.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. 996). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal 47, 203-210.
Pica, T. (1996). The essential role of negotiation in the communicative classroom. JALT Journal 18, 241-68.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,17-46.
Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversation ability m a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.