1. Toward Quantifying ‘Communicative’ Leander Hughes Saitama University Presented at the JACET Kanto 5 th Annual Convention http://sustainableink.files.wordpress.com

2. The Problem http://jnksystem.exblog.jp/10216734/ How to help learners acquire the most language in the shortest time …and do so as painlessly as possible.

3. ‘Common Knowledge’ http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C8%99ier:Old_book_bindings.jpg / No teaching approach is better than any another …except for communicative approaches...that include some focus on form

4. http://alluscion.files.wordpress.com/ But does CLT really work (better)? Nikolov & Krashen (1997) say YES! …but can we believe them? [N=29] Kuhlemeier, Mels, & van den Bergh (1996) say yes …maybe [N= 1134 to 1225]

5. (Rodin, 1902) Research Question (Rodin, 1902) Do communicative activities lead to significantly greater language gain than non- communicative activities?

6. ‘Communicative’ activities require: At least two people both sending and receiving messages in the TL & directly comprehending those messages (Hughes, 2008, based on Canale, 1983)

7. Devising Our Experiment Two-way info gap One-way info gap Scripted skit Relax (do nothing)

8. Measures Before: Language aptitude test During: Info-gap performance & language produced After: Post-test on vocabulary, grammar, and function(s), Attitude toward activity TWICE! (geneticcuckoo.blogspot.com)

9. Hypothesis The communicative activity group will score highest on all post-tests (after controlling for language aptitude) (Young Frankenstein, 1974)

10. Problems? Controlling for initial proficiency differences the ‘practice’ effect the teacher Assumptions short-term gain  long-term acquisition Communicative/non-communicative ratio unimportant (Escher, 1960)

11. Your thoughts are needed!

12. Leander Hughes (leanderhughes@gmail.com) http://sustainableink.files.wordpress.com This PowerPoint: www.saitama-u.ac.jp/ceed/quantifyingcommunicative THANK YOU! Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman. Hughes, L. S. (2008). A framework for assessing the communicative potential of language learning activities. The Saitama Journal of Language, 1, 19-29. Kuhlemeier, H., Melse, L., & Bergh, H. van den (1996). Comparison of two German language courses in Dutch secondary education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 181–205. Nikolov, M. & Krashen, S. (1997). Need we sacrifice accuracy for fluency? System, 25, 2, 197-201.

13. References (again) Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman. Hughes, L. S. (2008). A framework for assessing the communicative potential of language learning activities. The Saitama Journal of Language, 1, 19-29. Kuhlemeier, H., Melse, L., & Bergh, H. van den (1996). Comparison of two German language courses in Dutch secondary education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 181–205. Nikolov, M. & Krashen, S. (1997). Need we sacrifice accuracy for fluency? System, 25, 2, 197-201.