{"id":62868,"date":"2022-05-19T07:40:04","date_gmt":"2022-05-19T11:40:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=62868"},"modified":"2022-05-26T18:11:48","modified_gmt":"2022-05-26T22:11:48","slug":"speak-to-teach-it-can-be-learned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/speak-to-teach-it-can-be-learned\/","title":{"rendered":"Speak to teach, it can be learned"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

The oral is more and more valued, whether with the vogue of eloquence competitions, the proliferation of popularization accounts on YouTube or the creation of a large oral at the baccalaureate.\u00a0The speaker is expected to speak correctly, with an appropriate syntax, audibly, articulating and that his words interest the listeners.\u00a0But before being able to express themselves and defend ideas in such frameworks, students still need a certain amount of knowledge.\u00a0And to accompany, in each discipline, the pupils in this reflective activity of thought, it is a question of setting up in the class a working oral.<\/p>\n

What are the characteristics of this oral allowing everyone to learn?\u00a0And, how to make teachers aware of its importance?<\/p>\n

Although oral language is mentioned in school curricula, it is very little present as an object of teaching in the timetables, from primary school to high school.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, oral communication is the preferred means of communication between teachers and students.\u00a0It is also mainly for this reason that it is not taught.\u00a0As it is considered more “natural” and more “spontaneous” than writing, teachers are used to using the spoken word to help the most vulnerable pupils in reading and writing, which contributes to considering it as a means of teaching rather than a real object of teaching.<\/p>\n

\u00c9lisabeth Bautier<\/a>\u00a0, sociologist, warns, however, that the classes have never been so talkative, but that, for all that, the specificities of this oral learning are not taught.<\/p>\n

Building knowledge<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Indeed, if the oral language used in the classroom is closer to everyday language than to the oral language used in school learning (which is more like writing) and it is not not perceived as a teaching object in its own right, this can create misunderstandings among pupils as to the meaning and purpose of oral interventions at school, which can further deepen inequalities.<\/p>\n

In fact, language is neither natural nor transparent;\u00a0its uses are always dependent on a context or a human activity which leads\u00a0Jaubert, Rebi\u00e8re and Berni\u00e9<\/a>\u00a0to say that the uses of language at school are specific to each discipline.\u00a0Pupils must learn the ways of acting, speaking and thinking specific to each of these subjects, a necessary condition for building together grammatical knowledge, in the case of the work that we present.<\/p>\n

Within the framework of a collaborative research of two consecutive years, on the use of oral in the teaching of grammar in cycle 3 (students in CM1\/CM2), we filmed four teachers on the grammatical notion\u00a0“Phrase simple vs. complex sentence\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(French Grammar, p 22 \u2013 paragraph 2.1).\u00a0During the interviews that followed between researchers and participants and between participants themselves, they were able to view their practices and analyze them individually and then collectively to become aware of the role of language in the construction of knowledge.<\/p>\n

From the written transcriptions of the videos of the sessions, we did a quantitative analysis to establish the percentages of speaking time for each and to obtain the average length of the statements of the students and each teacher by counting the number of words of their statements.<\/p>\n

Beyond the comparison of the speaking times and the length of the statements between the two years, we carried out a qualitative analysis of the discourse of the teachers and the students to identify what had changed (the nature of the statements, closed\/open questions on the part of the teachers, yes\/no answers, presence of arguments among the pupils, etc.).<\/p>\n

Reflect on their practices<\/strong><\/h4>\n

During the interviews for the first year’s sessions, the teachers realize that they talk too much (more than 80% of speaking time) and that their total questions (is that?) or closed questions (which often do not wait only one or two words), have an impact on the length of the students’ statements (\u00be words) and on the content (very few elements of knowledge).\u00a0In the sessions of the second year, we observe less unbalanced speaking times (around 70%) and a longer average length of the students’ statements (more than 6 words on average).<\/p>\n

Indeed, the teachers mobilize fewer closed questions, encourage the pupils to complete, to justify their remarks and to use precise grammatical terms.\u00a0As a result, students formulate longer answers, seek to explain and also mobilize more varied uses of language, specific to the grammar and knowledge at stake, for example:<\/p>\n