web hosting short URLs photo sharing

This document consists of two papers with a shared bibliography. Both sections explore the potential for using video in Teaching English for Specific Purposes: part one is about using video recorded off-air whilst part two reports on a project to produce video materials in-house.

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the use of off-air video material for the teaching of academic writing skills and consists of two main parts. The first section looks at the use of off-air video including criteria for selection. The second section looks at a specific video lesson and gives the background to the teaching situation; a description of the video extract and details of how this material will be exploited. A worksheet for the lesson is also attached.

Overview

Many courses for the teaching of academic writing skills use reading texts for input. Study Writing by Hamps-Lyon and Heasley [1987], for example, uses texts for two reasons - either to demonstrate the specific linguistic features which are the focus of a unit or to provide interesting content to stimulate students' writing. This lesson, however uses a video extract as input. Whilst video materials will not, as a general rule, demonstrate features of written English they are useful for the second purpose, stimulus. As Lonergan says, "By generating interest and motivation, ... video ... can create a climate for successful learning." [1984 : 5]. Written texts can take a long time for learners to read and students can "... get bogged down in the reading process ..." [Hamps-Lyon & Heasley 1987 : 139]. Video, on the other hand, has an immediate impact and the language is supported by visual clues [Lonergan 1984, Allan, 1985]. Although one advantage of written texts is that they can be re-read if necessary for successful comprehension, video can be re-played [Lonergan 1984].

Whilst video material can be produced 'in-house' (this possibility is explored in Part II of this assignment) there can be advantages to using material recorded off-air. One of these is the quality - as Ellington and Race [1993 : 200] observe, modern broadcast television is extremely sophisticated and viewers have become accustomed, albeit unconsciously, to watching well-made programmes and so may doubt the message contained in 'amateurish' productions. As the majority of teachers do not have access to sophisticated video production facilities, Ellington and Race suggest that it is probably better to use high-quality off-air materials where possible.

Off-air video as an authentic text

Many writers in the field of Teaching English for Specific Purposes argue that it is important that learners are exposed to authentic material - 'authentic' in the sense that it was not originally prepared for EFL learners. Morrow [1977 : 13] for example, defines authentic as "a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer, for a real audience and designed to convey a real message of some sort." However, Hutchinson & Waters [1987 :159] claim that material is only authentic in its original context (in this case the general viewing population watching television in their own homes) and that texts lose genuine authenticity as soon as they are taken into a language classroom. This does not mean that, in the opinion of Hutchinson & Waters, authentic texts should not be used but rather that such material should be used only where pertinent to a particular teaching aim.

One of the main advantages using authentic texts take from the learners' own subject area is that they alter the 'balance of power' within the classroom - as Phillips and Shettlesworth [1978 : 109] note, "the teacher is no longer the undisputed authority on the text and must acknowledge the student's expertise in the subject." This can lead to interesting and stimulating discussions in the classroom as the learners become involved in assisting the teacher's comprehension of the material.

Criteria for choosing off-air video

According to Arcario [u/d] some important factors to consider in the selection of off-air video are the length and independence of the extract, appropriateness of content, sound and picture quality, extent of visual support and language density. Extracts should be brief: Stempleski [u/d : 11] suggests that 2-3 minutes of video will provide sufficient material for a one hour lesson while Ellington & Race [1993 : 196-7] note that "concentration spans tend to be short, especially with a medium which has conditioned people to a relaxation approach. Sound quality is a particularly important factor because, as Arcario notes: "most language students...have little tolerance for poor sound quality" Visual support may be less important: MacWilliam [1986] suggests that it is actually easier for learners to understand video material when the face of the speaker is visible.

Background

This material is intended for a group of overseas students in the first year of a degree in Civil Engineering (BEng) at the University of Bradford. The majority of the learners are Greek with other individuals coming from Spain, Portugal, Hong Kong and Botswana and have been admitted with an English level equivalent to an IELTS profile of 6-9. The course aims to improve writing skills and focuses particularly on functions of written English. No coursebook is prescribed - although the module description does appear to be very close to Jordan [1990]. This course takes place over one semester (twelve weeks) and comprises thirty-six hours teaching (i.e. three hours per week) together with a further sixty-four hours personal study.

Although there is an abundance of materials for the teaching of academic writing and there are several books with titles such as 'English for Engineers' there appears to be a dearth of materials dealing with writing skills for Engineers. Jordan's Academic Writing Course [1990] does cover all the functions outlined in the module description but the material, which does not include any texts related to civil engineering, draws mostly on fields of 'general interest' such as education which, in practice, tend to be of limited relevance to this group of learners. Learners, however, tend to learn more when their interest is engaged [Hutchinson and Waters 1987 : 81]. Two possibilities suggest themselves: one is the approach used by Brookes & Grundy [1990] which draws upon learners' own experiences; the other is to look for material related to the target situation - in this case civil engineering. Care should be taken, however, with the second approach to ensure that the content (as opposed to language) of the materials is neither too basic nor too advanced for the learners. As the target group here consists of first year students in their first term the technical content should be similar to that offered to a layperson with a general interest in the field - the level that Robinson [1991 : 28] refers to as "semi-technical".

Content

The video material consists of an excerpt from a programme called "How Do They Do That" which looks at various topics of interest to the general public and answers the questions "How do they...?" In this case the question was "How do they build skyscrapers?" which is answered by exploring a proposal to build a tower half a mile high in celebration of the millennium. The programme examines problems that occur in the building of tall structures (such as wind causing the building to sway) and how these will be resolved in the building of the Millennium Tower. The extract is brief and consists of several sequences including a historical overview which could be used for a separate lesson. Other sequences look at particular issues in the building of the tower and deal with these through diagrams, simulation, filmed material or the architect's 'talking-head'. The picture quality is good, at least on the original tape - if subsequent copies are made the picture quality will deteriorate. This could cause problems with comprehension as a lot of the information is explained through diagrams. The sound quality is also good on the original tape although there are two potential problems with speech delivery which need to be considered. One possible problem may arise due to the fact that the original TV programme was essentially an 'entertainment documentary', therefore the presenters speak quickly and rather over-enthusiastically. The other is that one of the presenters has an Irish accent which could be difficult for learners who are not familiar with the range of native English-speaker accents. Students in a British University are, however, exposed to a wide range of native and non-native speaker accents and so this could be seen as an opportunity for learners to improve their listening skills. Again, as this programme was originally intended for native speakers the language is quite dense and has not been graded as would be the case with commercially produced ELT materials. However, as with the presenter's non-standard accent this can be seen as an advantage to this particular group of learners who have to attend and understand lectures targeted at their native English speaking colleagues.

Exploitation

Both Allan [1985] and Lonergan [1984] note that people tend to be accustomed to watching television (and hence video) in a 'passive' manner. Most people usually watch television at home, for relaxation, and do not feel a need to complete worksheets or write sample paragraphs about the programmes they have seen. However, as Stempleski [u/d : 11] says: "Learners need challenging activities and tasks that require them to focus on different aspects of the video," if the available material is to be exploited fully.

This lesson consists of four main sections. The first part is a 'pre-watching' activity intended to introduce the topic and encourage learners to anticipate the content of the video. This could be replaced by viewing one of two sequences without soundtrack - either the shots of different modern skyscrapers or the 1920s New York 'skyboys' and using this as a stimulus for discussion. This is similar to the introductory activity presented in many coursebooks where learners are asked to discuss one or more photographs. Once learners have discussed the 'before you watch' questions they are asked to read the next section of the worksheet. Lonergan [1984 : 11] says that :"it is essential that the contents of the (viewing) guides are known or taught before learners watch the video sequence." The viewing activities are designed to facilitate rather than test comprehension and learners therefore need to be clear about the activity before trying to complete the task while watching the film. There are two 'while watching' tasks. The first is note-taking and is designed so that learners can continue to the next activity (making questions) even if they have not realised this task. Learners may be so absorbed in the programme that they are unable to take notes (Lonergan admits that reading and writing tasks can be difficult to complete whilst viewing) [1984:11]. The second 'while watching' task involves a guided note-taking activity. This is intended not only as an aid to comprehension but also as information gathering for the writing stage. The questions are given in the same sequence as the information is presented on the video so that students can complete the table as they watch always knowing that they are looking and listening for the next item. The subsequent parts of the lesson involve a language review/input and a writing activity. The 'before writing' tasks gives the teacher an opportunity to discover what the learners already know and to suggest new language items. Finally, the learners are asked to write a report using information they have gathered from the video.

It should be noted that, although the worksheet contains instructions such as: "Now watch the video", this is not intended to be self-study material. These instructions are a reminder to the teacher to ensure that learners have read and understood the viewing tasks before the video is shown.

CONCLUSION

In the attached lesson the off-air video is used as a stimulus and to present material that will be used as content for the writing task. The video extract is used more or less as it was originally broadcast because this is the most appropriate use although other lessons and material could require other approaches. These might include editing of the video or viewing techniques such as playing only the sound or the visuals. It is hoped that using video in the writing class will overcome the problems caused by material that is seen as irrelevant by making the lesson more interesting and increasing the motivation of the learners.

INTRODUCTION

This paper considers the use of a video camera for English Language Teaching - concentrating on a specific filming project carried out at the University of Bradford. The first part of the paper gives a brief overview of video cameras in ELT whilst the second section describes the filming project in terms of the target situation, the content, an evaluation and the exploitation of the material. Finally there is a look at the possibilities for learners producing their own video materials.

There are several ways in which a video camera can be exploited in the ELT classroom. Firstly it may be used to film performances of either teacher or learners to provide material for feedback. Secondly the camera may be used to produce materials which are then taken into the classroom. In this case the actual classroom use would be similar to the exploitation of video recorded off-air with the difference that every aspect of the materials can be controlled by the teacher. The third, and possibly most exciting possibility, is use of the camera by the learners themselves. As both Lonergan [1984] and Allan [1985] make clear, the making of a video film is a group enterprise and the processes of planning and production involve a considerable amount of discussion (hence language production) in addition to any language used in the film itself. Ellington & Race [1993 : 199], moreover, observe that: " The act of making a video tends to be memorable. Whether operating a camera, or playing a part in the recording, heightened learning outcomes are normally achieved." The possibilities for student-produced video will be considered towards the end of this paper.

Production quality is an important factor in the success of video materials as poor production quality may cause learners to question the validity of the programme content [Ellington and Race 1993 : 200]. Quality is not, however, as important if the materials have been produced by learners themselves because the sense of achievement will probably encourage them to forgive technical flaws. Furthermore, even if the materials produced by learners are of less than excellent quality, desired learning objectives should still have been achieved by the production process.

Target situation:

The attached video film was produced for a group of students in the second year of a degree in chemical Engineering at the University of Bradford. The second year EFL module focuses on the functions of writing academic English with the aim of improving the students' ability and confidence to write laboratory and industrial placement reports. Although there is a variety of materials available for the teaching of academic writing skills very little of this is aimed directly at engineering students (a more detailed analysis of this situation is given in Part I of this assignment) and so, in the last two years the course has been taught using class discussion of students' practical work in the engineering laboratories. This has proved successful as the students can see the relevance of the writing 'exercises'. The video film is intended to build on this method of working and also to overcome a slight problem which arises when not all members of the English class have participated in the same procedure. Laboratory projects are carried out in groups of four so it is quite possible that only a few people in the class will have undertaken any particular experiment. The video film should make it easy for those students who have worked on an investigation to explain it to the rest of the class and for the other students to understand the explanation. It should be noted that Chemical Engineering practicals tend to involve the operation of a fixed rig which the students observe over a period of up to three hours, making recordings and calculations at regular intervals - it is therefore possible to understand the process and describe the equipment without having done the experiment.

Content:

The video film consists of a brief introduction followed by two main parts: four experiments recorded in the Chemical Engineering laboratories and presented by Dr Henry, one of the chemical Engineering lecturers and an interview with Dr Harnby, Head of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Chemical Engineering. Interviews with students were also recorded but it was decided not to use these in the final film due to length. The intention was to make a film of approximately ten minutes, the actual production is approximately twelve minutes long and the student interviews would have added at least another two or three minutes. These could, however be added later if required for classroom use.

Each experiment is explained and demonstrated by Dr Henry. This is extremely important as the experiments are not self-explanatory and, in two cases all the action takes place inside an enclosed 'rig' which means that there is nothing to see. The first experiment, 'Heat Transfer Co-efficients' is one of these but photographs taken whilst the rig was under construction (these have been recorded on the film but are also available on a separate sheet) help students understand the equipment.

At present, the film is continuous, it is intended to edit the material again to separate the various components - the individual experiments and the interview so that each can be used for one lesson. Although, at the moment , the material will be used by the teacher responsible for the production this may not always be the case and so it should be borne in mind that a future user may not be neither familiar with the film itself nor using a video recorder in the classroom.

The original material consisted of approximately one hour's filming which, through editing has been reduced. Much of this editing consisted of removing irrelevant material (such as the students' interviews and some outside). On the whole, the material has been kept in its original format: the interview with Dr Harnby is a 'talking head' and the experiments altered only occasionally in order to add close-up shots of individual parts of the equipment (such as gauges and dials) where Dr Henry is referring to these items. Some authorities, such as Millerson [1992 : 147], for example, suggest that an extended interview with a single subject can lack visual interest (which is undoubtedly true) and would include 'cutaway shots', others, notably MacWilliam [1986], believe that comprehension is enhanced by being able to see the speaker. MacWilliam claims that, with the documentary style 'voice-over' where a commentary by an unseen speaker is supported by (usually) related visual information, learners "find a conflict between information presented in linguistic and visual modes" and therefore tend to concentrate on the visual aspect at the expense of the aural" [1986 : 132]. If the material is to be used for the teaching of listening skills this is an important point and it should also be borne in mind that these students need to enhance listening ability in order to attend lectures where they have to listen (and look at) a single lecturer for as long as one hour.

Evaluation:

In evaluating the quality of the film it is necessary to consider both the editing and the shooting. Overall the editing is poor and the film would benefit from being edited again, preferably by a professional technician. As Ellington and Race [1993 : 192] point out, however, when talking about the advantages of video over cine film, the electronic editing of video can be repeated until the desired result is obtained with no loss except the time of the technician. Particular editing mistakes include some loss of continuity (there is one shot where Dr Henry extends his hand which then disappears in the next shot); titling which is difficult to read because of the complex background; places where the tape was not accurately rewound when re-doing an edit and a disturbing absence of soundtrack during the introductory titles. This last aspect would not be significant if the entire introductory sequence were without sound but as the titles are preceded by a selection of voice-over and ambient sounds, the effect is of a sudden cut in the soundtrack which is extremely noticeable to viewers accustomed to the normal high standards of commercial video/TV production. Another significant editing mistake occurs early in the film where Dr Harnby is talking about the origins of his department. Two excerpts from his interview have been cut together so that Dr Harnby appears to say, "The department was set up about thirty years ago, so we've been running for about thirty years", which does not reflect well on his intelligence! The interview with Dr Harnby also suffers from poor editing demonstrating Millerson's point that, if parts are simply taken from and interview and joined together "there will be a 'jump-cut' at the start of each new section" as the speaker's expression or position will have changed slightly [1992 : 195]. Millerson suggests using 'nod shots' of the interviewer to disguise the cuts. As the original filming included these 'nod shots' these can be inserted. However, it will then also be necessary to insert at least one question from the interviewer (these were edited out of the final film) otherwise the viewers will be distracted by this unidenitfied 'nodding head'. Inserting shots of the interviewer is, in any case necessary, as at some points he can be heard in the background, making agreeing sounds as Dr Harnby speaks - because the interviewer is never seen these sounds are quite distracting.

The quality of the original filming is mixed. The shots in the laboratory are generally of reasonable quality with good sound - despite the fact that the Chemical Engineering laboratory is a very noisy environment. The lighting is also good - although the laboratories have been designed so that there is a lot of a natural light available, it was found that the use of a directional video lamp enhanced the lighting. A lamp produces what Millerson [1992 : 63] calls 'hard light' which, although it can have its disadvantages, in this case provides good definition making the equipment clear with high contrast between the test rigs and the (white) background. One problem, with lighting did occur when filming the 'Drop Formation from Orifices' (pink bubbles in a column). The ambient light in this room was not adequate for filming and the best results were obtained when filming through the column. Unfortunately this meant that Dr Henry's face was in shadow. Eventually the description and column were filmed separately then, during editing, shots of the illuminated column were intercut with shots of Dr Henry's presentation. In this particular segment Dr Henry started to speak just a little too soon after the 'record' button was pressed on the video camera with the result that the first few words of his presentation have been missed.

The interview with Dr Harnby suffers from three main faults. One is the framing of the shot: Millerson [1993 :53] suggests applying the 'rule of thirds', that is , dividing the screen into three equal sections and composing shots "so that the main subject come on these lines". This means that, in a medium close-up shot of a person, the subject's eyes should be approximately two-thirds of the way up the screen. In this interview the subject's head is too low in the frame giving too much headroom. Although Dr Harnby is placed in the centre of the screen he is looking to the side, talking to the (invisible) interviewer: a better effect might have been created by framing the shot so that the subject was slightly to one side of the screen. The second problem is that the interviewer was holding the microphone close to the subject with the results that Dr Harnby looks as though he feels uncomfortable - it would have been much better to have used a tieclip microphone. Failing that, the microphone could have been placed on the table (although this runs the risk of picking up stray sounds such a finger-tapping). The awkward tone of this interview contrasts with Dr Henry's relaxed presentations where he is holding his own microphone, moving around the laboratory and in control of the activity. The third main problem seen in the interview is that the focus is poor - it is not clear why this should have been so. There is, furthermore, not a lot of visual interest in the shot - the background and the subject's clothing all seem to be in the same shades of brown. The curtains were closed because it was a sunny day and sun coming through the window was causing a problem. This meant that there was an appropriate quantity of light but the curtains unfortunately acted as a filter, bathing everything beige.

However, although the visual quality of this section is poor overall, the sound is acceptable and so, with judicious editing, it could be used for listening practice. The video would still, probably, be more 'authentic' than an audio tape of the same material as, in a normal lecture or seminar, learners can see as well as hear the person speaking. It is interesting to note Dr Harnby's delivery - as the interview was being conducted by a student from Malaysia, Dr Harnby is speaking more slowly and carefully than if he were talking to a native English speaker - this could be seen as either an asset (because it will be easier for learners to follow) or a drawback (because learners need to be able to follow speech delivered normally) for classroom purposes.

Exploitation:

As explained earlier, although not of adequate quality in its present form, after being edited again this video is intended to form the basis of several lessons. The section filmed in the laboratories will be used for the teaching of academic writing skills and it is one of those lessons which is described here. This lesson uses the first experiment 'Heat Transfer Co-efficients' up to the point where Dr Henry places the two u-tubes on the table after he has finished describing the procedure (2m 50s from the beginning of the film).

The lesson follows Hutchinson & Waters' suggested model of "input, content focus, language focus, task" [1987 : 108-9] and is accompanied by a worksheet (attached) which not only asks students to make notes but also gives the purpose of the lesson. Students learn better from video if the desired learning outcomes are made clear and having an activity to concentrate on should help the learners to be passive rather than active viewers [Ellington & Race 1993]. The guided note-taking activity is intended to provide students with material to use as the basis for the writing activity and has the secondary aim of giving practice in listening and note-taking [Lonergan 1984 :24]. As Lonergan points out, the video selection may need to be played more than once in order for the learners to take notes successfully. Whether this is necessary should become apparent from the pre-watching activity where learners are asked if they have already completed this experiment. The aim of the lesson is for students to write the 'method' section of a laboratory report using such language elements as past tense passive voice, sequence markers and relative clauses. It is assumed that learners will have covered these in previous courses and so the lesson is intended more as a review than as input. However, the 'Before Writing' section is designed to uncover the extent of the learners' knowledge (or ignorance) and give an opportunity for input should it be necessary.

There is no reason why a film of this nature could not be produced by the learners themselves as a part of the first year EFL module which concentrates on oral/aural skills including giving presentations. Making a video film about aspects of Chemical Engineering or the work of the department would involve group planning and discussion (an important skill given that second and third year practical work will be carried out in groups). Learners would also need to practise asking questions, if they are to interview lecturers, and presentation skills when speaking to the camera. Ellington and Race point out that learners filming each other "leads to 'deep thinking' about the processes involved and ultimately helps learners develop the respective skills far more effectively than simply watching other people demonstrating them." [1993 : 199] The entire project could then be the subject of a formal class presentation. Students would, of course, be assessed on the process rather than on the quality of the final product. The films produced could then be used for the same group of students in the second year and be exploited in the same way as teacher produced materials. The difference would be in the transfer of ownership of the materials and hence of the learning process from teacher to learners which, according to Ellington and Race [1993 : 198] results in deeper and more active learning.

CONCLUSION

In summary it can be seen that, although the video produced for the filming project is, in its present form, of too poor quality for classroom use, the original idea is still good. The filmed material can be edited again to produce more professional output or, given that the filming itself has flaws, it would be better to start again from the beginning and re-shoot. The use of expert, or semi-professional technicians would greatly enhance the quality. Another solution would be to use the idea of making a video as a part of the first year EFL module and then use the resulting materials for the same group of learners in their second year. Although these learner-produced materials would probably be as 'amateurish' as the results of the filming project, this would be less of an obstacle to successful classroom use because learners would feel a sense of 'ownership'. In short, as Ellington and Race [1993 : 200] point out, "it is often better to give learners time to make a 'bad' video than to show them one!"

• Allan, M. (1985) Teaching English with Video, Longman: London
• Arcario, P. (undated) "Criteria for Selecting Video Materials" in Stempleski, S. and Arcario, P. (u/d) Video in Second Language Teaching, TESOL Inc.
• Brookes, A. and Grundy, P. (1990)Writing for Study Purposes, Cambridge University Press
• Ellington, H. and Race, P. (1993)Producing Teaching Materials (2nd Edition), Kogan Page : London
• Hamps-Lyon, L. and Heasley, B. (1987) Study Writing ,Cambridge University Press
• Holden, S. (Ed.) (1977) English for Specific Purpose , Modern English Publications: London
• Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes, Cambridge University Press
• Jordan, R.R. (1990) Academic Writing Course, Nelson ELT: London
• Lonergan, J.(1984) Video in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press
• MacWilliam, I. (1986) "Video and language comprehension" ELT Journal 40/42
• Millerson, G. (1992) Video Production Handbook (2nd Edition) Focal Press (Butterworth-Heinneman): Oxford
• Morrow, K. (1977) "Authentic Texts in ESP" in Holden, 1977
• Phillips, M.K. and Shettlesworth, C.C. (1978) "How to Arm Your Students: A Consideration of Two Approaches to Providing Materials for ESP" in Swales, J. 1985, Episodes in ESP
• Robinson, P. (1991) ESP Today : A Practitioner's Guide Prentice Hall International: Hemel Hempstead
• Stempleski, S. (undated) "Teaching Communication Skills with Authentic Video" in Stempleski, S. and Arcario, P. (u/d) Video in Second Language Teaching TESOL Inc.
• Swales, J. (Ed.) (1985) Episodes in ESP Pergamon Press: Oxford

VIDEO MATERIAL

• How Do They Do That? BBC TV, broadcast 30th October 1996

Click here to go back to the Video page.