Strategic competence in AFL textbooks: Problems and suggestions for addressing them

Raghda El Essawi

TAFL program, Applied Linguistics department, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, American University in Cairo

ABSTRACT
Several decades ago researchers like Celce-Murcia and Dornyei (1995) have highlighted the value of including communication strategies (CSs) in foreign language syllabi to help learners avoid communication problems. However, despite research indicating the positive effect of training students to use CSs, analysis of English language textbooks indicate inconsistent attention to them (Faucette, 2001; Vettorel, 2018). In the field of AFL teaching no effort has been done to look into this issue. In an attempt to bridge this gap, the current study analyzes three AFL Novice textbooks teaching Spoken Arabic dialects, to detect extent and level of focus on CS. Judging by the fact that such books dealt with a mainly oral language variety (Egyptian dialect), it was expected that they would display attention (even if limited) to CSs. The study looks into the following questions: Are CSs addressed in AFL textbooks analyzed? And at which level are they addressed: orientation (i.e. increasing learners’ awareness of importance of CSs), exposure (i.e. exposing learners to targeted strategy and language tools needed for its execution), or practice (i.e. creating opportunities that would help learners practice using CS)? Results of study indicate absence of focus on CSs at orientation and practice levels, while at exposure level limited focus appears. The paper suggests possible reasons for these results and then presents pedagogical suggestions for incorporation of CSs in AFL classes and teaching material at the three previously mentioned levels (orientation, exposure, and practice) as indicated by research on strategy instruction, studies about the topic, and foreign language teaching resources.

KEYWORDS: language learning, textbook evaluation, learning strategies, strategic competence, speaking

INTRODUCTION
What is communicative competence?
With the spread of the communicative approach a shift in foreign language teaching became necessary. Teachers’ and material developers’ focus on grammatical (or linguistic) competence or the ability to produce accurate sentences, was replaced by a more general focus on learners’ communicative competence as a whole. The latter, according to the Celce-Muricia & Dornyei (1995)  popular pedagogical model, includes a complex web of language competences that mesh together leading to successful communication.  Beside linguistic competence, communicative competence includes: Discourse competence  or ‘the selection, sequencing, and arrangement of words, structures, sentences, and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text’ (p.13); Actional competence or ‘knowledge of an inventory of verbal schemata that carry illocutionary force’ (p.17); sociocultural competence ‘how to express messages appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication’ (p.23); and strategic competence or ‘knowledge of communication strategies and how to use them’ to avoid communication breakdowns (p. 26). This multi-faceted competence is what teachers and material developers should address when planning communicative language teaching.

What are communication strategies (CSs)?
As mentioned in the previous section communication strategies (CSs) forming strategic competence are tactics used by language users to bridge communication gaps Celce-Muricia & Dornyei (1995). According to Nakatani (2010), the term is used to ‘highlight interlocutors’ negotiation behavior for coping with communication breakdowns and their use of communication enhancers’ (p. 118.) In other words, communication strategies are attempts on part of participants in a conversation to resolve difficulties in communication. Celce-Muricia & Dornyei (1995) add that CS are an important means of enhancing effectiveness of communication (p.27).

One of the most important features of CSs, as reflected by  Faerch and Kasper’s (1983) widely accepted definition, is consciousness and intentionality: ‘Communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular goal (p.36).’  Thus, resorting to CSs is neither haphazard nor accidental, but it is a conscious effort on the part of its users. Another important feature highlighted by Canale and Swain (1980), is that CSs include both verbal and non-verbal strategies (p. 30).

Celce-Muricia & Dornyei (1995) make clear that CSs include the following types:

1. Avoidance or reduction strategies: these are strategies for adapting or modifying message to one’s available linguistic resources through changing or replacing it to avoid difficult topics and/or abandoning message.
2. Achievement or compensatory strategies: These enable learner to compensate for linguistic deficiencies. They include:

• Circumlocution which means defining a word that learner does not know (The big car for many people: bus – الشخص اللي بيصلح الحنفية: السباك )
• approximation, (using the word boat instead of the word ship)
• all-purpose words (things, the thing that.. البتاع اللي/ الحاجة اللي/الشيء الذي),
• non-linguistic or non-verbal means (mime, gesturing, drawing etc),
• restructuring (restructuring the message to avoid a language difficulty e.g. a difficult word),
• Word-coinage (developing a new word that is linguistically possible but may not be used by native speakers e.g. vegetarianist ),
• literal translation from L1
• froeignizing (L1 word with L2 pronunciation),
• codeswitching to another foreign language,
• retrieval (e.g. bro.., bron.. , bronze).

4. Stalling or time-gaining strategies: These are devices used to buy time for thinking like:

• Fillers and hesitation devices (well, where was I .., actually, والله, في الحقيقة )
• self & other repetition.

2. Self-monitoring strategies: These include strategies used for:

• Self-initiated repair which means to correct or change produced message.
• self-rephrasing to avoid unknown word.

3. Interactional strategies: These are strategies used during interaction to:

• appeal for help whether directly ( what do you call .., how do we say ,, إزاي بنقول .قول معايا) or indirectly (I don’t know the word in English.., مش عارف الكلمة بالعربي);
• negotiate meaning by indicating not or misunderstanding through using:
• repetition of what has been said in a rising tone,
• clarification requests (what do you mean by,إيه/تقصد إيه ممكن توضح لي عايز)
• confirmation requests (Did you say, قلت لي أن)
• using expressions indicating lack of understanding like:
• Verbal expressions (Sorry, I am not sure I understand, آسف , مش فاهم بالظبط تقصد إيه؟)
• Non-verbal expressions like: facial expressions, or gestures indicating lack of understanding;
• Interpretive summary through re-stating what has been said or learner’s interpretation of it (you mean to say, what you are trying to say is, تقصد إن) to check comprehension;

-        responses that include repetition, rephrasing, expansion, reduction, confirmation,

rejection and/or repair.

4. Comprehension checks like checks to:

- detect whether listener is following what is being said (Am I making sense? فاهم قصدي إيه);

- detect whether what is being said is linguistically accurate (Can I say that? ممكن نقول كدا بالعربي؟);

- Checking whether the other party is listening (are you still there? معايا ؟);

-  Checking whether the other party can hear (حضرتك سامعني  ).

Importance of CSs
Being a means of addressing deficiency in linguistic competence, CSs are especially important at lower levels of proficiency. Though advanced learners (even native speakers) have a need for them, they are more essential to novice and intermediate level learners whose success in communicating meaning has a drastic effect on their learning process as a whole. According to Faucette (2001) Successful communication at such levels is expected to lead to:

• Increase in students’ general motivation to use and learn the language.
• Provide learners with further input in L2 which leads to further language learning.
• Provide feedback to learners about hypothesis they have formed about how L2 operates.
• Provide learners with opportunities of pushed output leading to deeper level of language processing necessary for further language learning.
• Increase in learner autonomy.

The above is verified by researchers like Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) who assert the importance of maintaining communication to increase benefit from modified input received. Interactionally modified input through strategies like appeal for help, asking for repetition, clarification request, confirmation request, and guessing is expected to present learners with needed opportunities for enhanced comprehensible input necessary for language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; Ellis 1994). Pushed output that results from learners’ attempt to ‘to use alternative means to get across ... the message ...precisely, coherently, and appropriately’ leads to second language development by increasing language accuracy, intelligibility, and appropriacy (Swain, 1985, p.248–249 in Rababah , 2016, p.627- 629)

Similarly Zheng (2004) stressed the importance of CSs for learners of foreign languages, arguing that they ‘keep speakers flexible, and confident, they also make communication more effective’ (in Moattarian, 2012 , p.2349). The complexity of oral communication and gaps that could exist in knowledge needed, creates a need for CSs to help learners meet their communicative goals (Puffer, 2006, p. 2350)

Teaching of CSs
One of the important issues causing considerable controversy is the teachability of CSs. Maleki (2007) points out that Bialystok (1990) and Kellerman (1991) regarded teaching CSs as being of little or no value. The former considered that students should be taught language not strategies. While the latter considered that we should let strategies look after themselves. The reason for such a stance is similarities between L1 and L2 learning making CSs transferable from L1 to L2 (p.585). However Willems (1987) and Dörnyei (1995) have highlighted the importance of training learners to use CSs since

[…] classroom learners cannot simply learn by ‘doing’ given that the foreign language classroom is not by its very nature the ideal scenario for learners to engage ‘naturally’ in a variety of communicative situations that would allow the implicit development of their strategic competence ( in Rababah , 2007, p.85).

Faucette (2001) justifiably argues that even if learners successfully use strategies in their L1 this does not necessarily mean they will be able to do so in L2. Therefore, ‘there is the need for training to bring learners’ attention […] to these strategies and help them become more aware of a repertoire of strategies available to them, including those they may already make use of in their L1’ (p.6).  Arguments against teaching CSs also included that their over usage could come at the expense of learners’ linguistic competence (Schmidt,1983;  Skehan, 1996,1998 in Ataollah, 2007, p.586). Such arguments however ignore what has been mentioned earlier about the benefit of CSs as a form of negotiating meaning and a source of L2 input.

Researchers who advocate teaching CSs include as indicated by Maleki (2007): Do ̈rnyei (1995), Do ̈rnyei and Thurrell (1991, 1994), Faerch and Kasper (1983, 1986), Tarone and Yule (1989) and Willems (1987) . Also, Galagher Bret, 2001; Rositer, 2003; Nakatani, 2005; Lam, 2006; Ya-ni, 2007; Tiwaporn, 2009; and Maleki, 2007, 2010 assert the same, according to Sukirlan (2014). Work done by all the above mentioned researchers suggest that communication strategy training deserves a place in language syllabi (p. 2034).

All the above research has resulted in a trend, adopted by this study, advocating the use of direct instruction of CSs through using pedagogical tools, syllabi, and teaching material that allow direct focus on them.  According to Muricia & Dornyei (1995)  procedures that could be used for fulfilling this goal are as follows:

1. Raising awareness of CSs through regular orientation to their nature and benefit in dealing with communication break downs.
2. Orienting students to the benefit of taking risks during communication while using CSs to avoid possible communication break downs.
3. Exposing learners to Models of use of CSs during communication.
4. Making clear cross-cultural differences that may affect usage of certain CSs.
5. Exposing learners to language resources (like vocab, expressions, and grammatical structures) necessary for the execution of targeted CSs.
6. Providing opportunities for practicing the use of CSs during communication.

Focus on CS in foreign language textbooks
One of the most important pedagogical tools that act as a guide for process of teaching and learning is textbooks. However, for this tool to play its role successfully, it is necessary that it fulfills learners’ needs as suggested by foreign language research. Among those is the need to use CS successfully to bridge communication breakdowns. In the following section the current study will explore studies that inspect extent to which foreign language textbooks were successful in fulfilling the above.

An example of such studies is one conducted by Faucette (2001) who inspected nine English language textbooks to detect CS introduced in selected material, and types of activities used to introduce them. Results of this study indicated that the most common CSs  introduced by inspected textbooks are circumlocution (appeared in seven books), appeal for assistance (six books), time-stalling devices (four books), and abandonment (two books), and only one introduced strategies of approximation, foreignizing, and word coinage. Faucette (2001) considers those results as both ‘encouraging and disappointing’ (p.15). They are encouraging when it comes to strategies that appear in most books analyzed like circumlocution and appeal for assistance. However, they are disappointing in case of strategies like approximation that only appear once.

Another example is the study of Rababah (2016) which examined 5 EFL books. Researcher in this study concludes that ‘CSs, especially the interactional ones are lacking, and circumlocution is sparingly used.’ Circumlocution activities include definitions of words based on reading comprehension texts, not as represented in spontaneous speech. ‘Thus, teachers and students do not perceive them as CS exercises. Besides, there is no mention of CSs to make them conscious of such strategies.’ (p.629).

Another study that looks into whether textbooks take into account CS is conducted by Vettorel (2018). Researcher analyzes 20 textbooks published by well-known Italian and international publishers from 1991 - 2015. Results indicate that only 3 books did not include any references or forms of practice that focus specifically on targeted CSs. Though a reasonable number of activities appeared to concentrate on CSs inspected in textbooks reviewed, Vettorel points out that

CSs do not appear to be treated in a systematic way in the material under examination. In the majority of cases few or no contextualized examples are provided, and sections dealing with CSs are not frequently accompanied by opportunities to actively ‘try them out’ in practice. (p.62).

Vettorel further points out that CS are not highlighted as such but are ‘named ‘study strategies/help/skills’, or ‘learning strategies’.’(62) In books published after 2000, CSs are presented as a form of exam preparation (especially international certifications), not as a means for addressing communication problems. Researcher also noted that, although books published after the year 2000 have mentioned that their point of reference is the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2001), they fail to consistently address CS referred to in it.

One of the few studies that inspects AFL textbooks’ focus on strategies supporting communication (even if indirectly) is El Essawi (2013). Study inspected teacher perceptions of extent to which textbooks they use encourage manipulation of the mentioned strategies. Results revealed that the mentioned strategies are perceived by AFL teachers as minimally supported by textbooks they use.

To the researcher’s best knowledge there has been little or no research other than the mentioned study that touch on the extent to which CS are focused on in AFL teaching material. This study comes to bridge the above mentioned gap by looking at the frequency with which CSs are addressed in a sample of AFL textbooks and the level/stage at which they are addressed: orientation (awareness of CSs and their role), exposure (modeling usage of CSs and providing necessary language resources), and/or practice (practicing usage of CSs to avoid communication breakdowns).  In order to fulfill the mentioned goals the study looks into the following research questions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Are CSs addressed in AFL textbooks analyzed?
2. At which level are CSs addressed most frequently in targeted textbooks: orientation, exposure, and/or practice?

STUDY PROCEDURES
Selection of Textbooks
Since study was mainly concerned with strategies needed during oral interaction, researcher decided to work with textbooks for teaching colloquial Arabic (in this case Egyptian) to novice level. These being mainly concerned with enhancing an oral variety, should – according to research discussed in previous section – include a clear focus on communication strategies especially for novice learners . In other words, these books should show clear attempts at training novice learners to address communication breakdowns resulting from language deficiency.

Choice of books was mainly based on results of a question posted on Facebook inquiring about ‘good’ books for teaching colloquial. Final decision was based on books’ availability to researcher and the fact that researcher realizes that those books are commonly used in and out of Egypt for learning and teaching of colloquial Cairene Arabic. Chosen books are (for more information about these books pls refer to appendix 1):

1. Kallamni Arabi bishwash
2. Kallam Gamiil
3. Dardasha

Process of analysis
This study mainly focuses on strategies that involve L2 production and therefore require L2 input to be provided by textbook. The reason is that such strategies are more likely to be focused upon by textbooks whose main goal is usually providing input and opportunities for practicing it. This means that strategies like avoidance or reduction strategies (which include message replacement, topic avoidance, and message abandonment) are not targeted during process of analysis. The study did not also focus on self-monitoring strategies (which includes self-initiated repair and self-rephrasing) since they are more likely to be student rather than textbook initiated effort. The study does not also trace facial expressions or body language.  On the other hand, the following strategies which involve L2 production – however simple – were focused upon in the process of analysis. For examples of how such strategies are used to deal with communication breakdowns please refer to appendix 2)

1. Compensatory strategies:

• circumlocution,
• approximation, and
• all-purpose words.

2. Time-gaining strategies:

• fillers, hesitation devices, and gambits.
• Self and other repetition.

3. Interactional strategies:

• Appeals for help (direct & indirect)
• Meaning negotiation strategies

1. Requests like repetition, clarification, and confirmation requests.
2. Expressions of non-understanding (verbal)
3. Interpretative summary

4. Comprehension checks:

• Whether interlocutor can follow.
• Whether what students said is correct or grammatical.
• Whether interlocutor is listening or paying attention.
• Whether interlocutor can hear.

In defining the above strategies the study relies on Celce-Muricia & Dornyei (1995) model as mentioned in the study introduction. The reason is that model presents the pedagogical ground work for enhancing CLT, making it appropriate for a study like the current one.  In detecting CSs, researcher relied on language resources (like vocab., expressions, and language structures) that flag focus on targeted strategies, as well as the context in which they appear. The need for considering context was created by the fact that some language resources could be used to fulfill more than one CS. For example the word تقصد (you mean to say) could be used as a comprehension check, or an attempt at summing up and rephrasing or both. In such cases researcher refers to context in which expression appears to decide the strategy/strategies highlighted.  Another important note is that despite the fact that some of the mentioned strategies only required limited possibly memorized language chunks (like comprehension checks- فاهمني؟), they were also considered due to the learning they involved (for example learning of set expressions, grammatical structures, and/or appropriate usage in relation to communicative context).

Since previous research inspecting foreign language textbooks has revealed that lack of systematicity in dealing with CS is a major problem, this study will not only inspect the apparent focus on such strategies as sperate incidents but also the extent to which textbooks deal with such strategies as part of a pedagogical framework that that covers all levels with which CSs could/should be dealt with. In order to fulfill this goal the study used a framework adapted from Sukirlan’s (2014) study that breaks down the process of handling CSs into three stages: orientation, exposure, and practice. The framework also help show extent to which textbook addresses Muricia & Dornyei (1995)   suggested procedures for teaching CSs, whereby: orientation covers raising learners’ awareness of CSs and orienting them to their benefits ; exposure addresses presenting CS models and their cultural connotations as well as language resources needed for their execution; practice allows for rehearsing CSs’ usage to avoid communication breakdowns.

Process of analysis involves inspecting the dialogues, notes (this includes cultural notes or useful words or words in focus), grammar notes, vocab lists, accuracy oriented activities and fluency oriented activities to detect whether any include language resources that flag focus on CS and level to which such focus belongs (orientation or awareness, exposure to language structures needed, and/or practice).

RESULTS
Results generally reveal very limited effort at highlighting CSs especially at levels of orientation and practice as will be detailed in the following section.

At the level of orientation
Analysis of all three books (38 lessons) reveal that two did not attempt orienting students to the value of CS in avoiding communication breakdowns. Only one book – namely Dardasha - showed very limited attempts at orientation to two examples of fillers used during hesitation. The book presented the filler (يعني) as one used in conversations “when people hesitate or when they are thinking what to say next” (Mughazy, 2004: 134). Another filler is والله “sometimes used as a speech filler similar to meaning of ‘well’, as in ‘well .. I don’t know” (Mughazy, 2004: 244). In both cases the author presents in English an explanation of the meaning of the term, and its various functions in the language (for example beside being a filler,  والله  is used for assertion or emphasis). In addition, he presents very short dialogues in Arabic (a couple of sentences each) where the term appears in context. Both expressions are introduced in a section entitled “expressions under focus” which serves in the rest of the book to provide cultural and/or pragmatic notes on certain expressions. Hence it would seem that orientation to the function of these expressions in dealing with communication breakdowns is not intentional.

Though all three books were mainly geared towards enhancing Novice level students speaking skill (which in the case of Arabic means working with a primarily non-written/oral variety namely the Egyptian dialect), there was no attempt at highlighting to users (whether students or teachers) the value of targeted CS in enhancing learners’ spoken fluency.

At the level of exposure
In contrast to results of orientation level, there seem to be some positive results at the level of exposure. The reason is that the researcher considered the appearance of any of the language resources needed for using the targeted strategies in any part of the lesson as a form of exposure (even if unintentional).The argument here – as mentioned earlier –  is that exposing learners to such language resources if used to avoid possible communication problem, may help learners note CSs’ role. This however might not be true of all learners, who usually are overwhelmed with trying to get the linguistic feature itself and so fail to note the function for which it is being used if not clearly pointed out to them through orientation.

In the first book Kallmni Arabi Bishwash, analysis revealed five examples of fillers or rather one filler repeated five times, namely the filler ‘ammmm’. These were used to indicate hesitation or thought thus buying time before a decision (example: choosing food and drink in a restaurant). There are 8 cases of self and other repetition. These are used in contexts that show repeating for verification. For example  repeating food order or phone number (Louis, 2008: 46,78) or road directions (p.124).  Cases of other repetition appear where speaker repeats part of the question directed to him/her while responding or to show surprise. Contexts in which latter examples appears however do not suggest buying time to address possible communication breakdown therefore they are not considered as CSs. The book also contains three examples of polite repetition requests ممكن مرة تانية لو سمحت؟ (can you repeat another time please)(Louis, 2008: 46) that are used in contexts suggesting the need for verification of information received. In addition, there are four examples of confirmation requests: ؟ تمام (correct?), ماشي؟ (O.K.?), مظبوط؟ (is that accurate?),  and صح؟ (correct?) (Louis, 2008: 46, 49, 129, 170). These requests represent the clearest example of usage of a CS to bridge a communication gap.

In the second book Kallam Gamiil, analysis at exposure level indicates that there are 5 examples of fillers طيب، ممم )) used in contexts revealing buying time before making a decision (like when considering which item to buy) (p. 31; 33; 76;102; 208). There are also two repetition requests. One using a useful expression that students can clearly use in everyday life situations ( p. 300 ممكن مرة تانية). The other is when speaker uses a regular question word (p.288 كام) so interlocutor would repeat price in a context suggesting subject did not hear what was said (using regular question words to request repetition). One further example is introduction of the term تقصد (Do you mean) in lesson’s main dialogue (lesson 10 p.333) used for paraphrasing or interpretive summary which falls under meaning negotiation strategies. Dialogue uses term for re-stating what interlocutor said to check speaker’s comprehension of message heard تقصد الشارع اللي قبل الكبري؟  (Do you mean/intend the street before the bridge?). The dialogue therefore presents the term in a context that demonstrates targeted CS. Sentences for presenting new vocab in the lesson, however, use term for a different purpose: قصده يضحك عليها (his intention is to trick her P.234) which could be confusing to learner.  In grammar notes تقصد is grouped with terms followed by unmarked imperfect verbs like ممكن  (it is possible), مفروض (should), نفسي (I wish) ( P.258). Only a couple of translated examples indicate that it is used for re-stating  قصدي أقول – قصدنا نقول(we mean to say) (P.258). The same grouping takes place in grammar notes about negation of modals (P. 259) and placing them in the past tense (p.259) for كان يقصد (he meant). Though considered as a form of exposure, grouping term with others that do not serve the same communicative function may make it difficult for learner to relate term to targeted CS, thus reducing benefit.

The third book ‘Dardasha’, also shows limited exposure to CSs. The most significant attempt at exposing learners to vocab needed to use CSs was in lesson one under ‘Expressions for classroom’ (p.17). Under this title the author presents words needed to check comprehension ( فاهم؟ ) together with responses indicating full (أيوة فاهم) , partial (نص نص), or lack of understanding (مش فاهم).Though the question falls under comprehension checks, its responses fall under interaction strategies . Examples of indirect and direct appeal for help ( يعني إيه ...-  إزاي أقول .... بالعربي) are also introduced in lesson one under the same title. Additionally, expressions needed to request repetition (تاني لو سمحت), are introduced. In other parts of the book, limited attempts at exposure to CS are apparent. For example, three expressions used for repetition requests appear in lesson eight mini dialogue (p.151) in a context that suggests an attempt to address break in communication. These are: نعم؟ (excuse me?), أنت بتقول إيه؟ (what are you saying?), تاني لو سمحت؟ (again please?).  The term قصدك used in a mini dialogue for interpretive summary or paraphrase is also introduced to avoid a communication breakdown (namely not knowing which library the speaker is inquiring about  p.141).. Exposure to the hesitation fillerيعني  (to which students are oriented under the section ‘words under focus’) is evident in a mini dialogue where the expression is used in a meaningful context ( P. 187 يعني .. سمعت أنها مدرسة ممتازة). This does not seem like an intentional move however since exposure to the other filler والله is not attempted except in very limited contexts (two mini dialogues each is a couple of lines long for demonstration during process of orientation p.244).

All three books reviewed did not introduce one of the most frequently used all-purpose words that native speakers resort to bridge communication gap when unable to find the correct word namely البتاع اللي (the thing which). Books have exposed learners to اللي and two of them exposed them to بتاع. However, these two terms, are introduced separately as grammar structures that are usable as relative pronoun in case of the former and to mean ownership in case of the latter. Hence books lose a golden opportunity for showing novice learners how native speakers use this structure to avoid communication breakdowns resulting from not knowing a word.

An attempt to demonstrate how CSs could be embedded in a lesson is introduced in appendix 2. A copy of the lesson with and without CSs is introduced to help reader note how these strategies work in context, and to demonstrate how lesson dialogues could be used to expose learners to such strategies.

At the level of practice
In all three books analyzed in this study very limited practice is used to focus on CSs. In case of accuracy-oriented activities, limited effort was exerted to structure activities to relate language resources practiced to CSs student needs. In fact, there are instances where no practice opportunities are created to activate language resources needed for CSs even though covered at level of exposure. For example, in book one (kallamni Arabi Bishwash) expressions used for repetition requests (ممكن مرة تانية لو سمحت؟) as well as those used for confirmation requests (مظبوط؟ صح؟) are not included in accuracy oriented activities geared towards practicing new vocab, expressions, and/or language structures.  The same is also true of fillers showing hesitation in all three books. While this is understandable in fillers that are sounds indicating thinking (ممم), it is not understandable in case of words like طب  in book two (Kallam Gamiil) or والله (Dardasha).

There are cases where expressions needed for manipulating a CS are highlighted in an accuracy-oriented activity like expression تقصد  (you mean) in book two (Kallam Gamiil). However, the expression which facilitates interpretive summary appears only in sentence level mechanical contexts for practicing unmarked imperfect after modals. This means that activities do not help practicing its usage to execute interpretive summary strategy.

One activity that could be used to practice CS (circumlocution), and one which appears frequently in book 2 (Kallam Gamiil), is where students are asked to define a word without saying it. This type of activity is only used however to review vocabulary. Although this game is repeated in almost all chapters of book two, it is not related to bridging communication gaps resulting from not knowing targeted word.

A review of fluency-oriented interactive activities (whether controlled, semi-controlled, or open-ended) reveal that none of them require addressing a communication gap (rephrasing, verifying info, checking comprehension or even show hesitation). This is despite the fact that students are exposed to the mentioned strategies. For example In book one (Kallemni Arabi Bishwash) , the only chance for students to practice confirmation requests using provided vocab (تمام – مضبوط – صح – ماشي – مرة تانية ) is in a mechanical activity when students listen and repeat with colleagues the mini dialogues in which such expressions appear (p.48). Open-ended interaction activities do not encourage students to incorporate CSs even if dialogue in lesson demonstrates how an expression is used to do that . In Kallam Gamiil students create dialogues replicating situation (giving directions) same as lesson (activity 5 p.247).  However, the way the activity is structured (use unmarked imperfect for road description) does not encourage learners to embed any communication problems in created situations. Thus, students are not encouraged to practice using CSs they were exposed to in lesson.  Similarly in book three Dardasha – which includes interesting communication activities – there is no attempt at creating contexts which encourage embedding CSs. For example situations are not created to elicit fillers (يعني - والله ) whose usage would both help make activity represent a truer simulation of reality and practice buying time. Thus, despite presence of some orientation and/or exposure, there are very limited practice opportunities that focus on CSs.

The above examples suggest that textbooks analyzed did not include a plan for practicing CSs even when the ground work has been laid through orientation or exposure, since none create situations that encourage practicing CSs. Thus we can sum up the results of all three levels by saying that AFL textbooks display limited focus on CS, since focus - when it appears - is displayed on one level namely exposure. Examples that do appear seem unintentional as indicated by two important facts. First textbooks’ introduction, where all three fail to address strategic competence or relate lessons to the more general vison of communicative competence introduced by researchers like Celce-Muricia & Dornyei (1995). Secondly, the sporadic nature of examples detected and lack of consistency in the way they are treated at different levels. The above results are in line with the study of El Essawi (2014) which indicated that CSs are minimally encouraged in AFL textbooks according to AFL teachers.

Compared to research about EFL textbooks, results of current study reveal that despite complaints that English as foreign language textbooks (EFL) do not systematically cover CSs, AFL textbooks’ focus on CS is even more limited. This is especially clear at level of orientation where various ways of increasing students’ awareness of CSs are used in EFL books. Some highlight the positive effect of using CSs during exams for international certificates (i.e. presenting them under learning or study strategies) or during  real world communication. Others, use headings like speaking strategies and oral interaction or ‘speaking bits’ to orient learners to role of CSs. In all mentioned cases CSs were introduced as useful techniques used to keep a conversation going which is not the case in AFL sample.

Form of exposure attempts in AFL textbooks are not different from those that appear in EFL. Both depend on dialogues, mini dialogues, and cultural or grammar notes that model CSs and exemplify how they operate. However, the process in EFL textbooks seem much more intentional. This is indicated by the fact that attempts at exposure are mostly preceded by or are part of a process of orientation to the targeted strategies and the role they play in addressing communication breakdowns. (Faucette, 2001; Vettorel, 2018).  More forms of practice also appear in English language textbooks even if sporadic or limited as indicated by Faucette (2001) and Vettorel (2018). Examples of such forms of practice will be introduced under pedagogical suggestions.

PEDAGOGICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR INCORPORATION OF CS IN AFL TEACHING MATERIAL
The ideal foreign/second language textbook should display show serious attempts at orienting learners to CSs, providing necessary linguistic resources, and including practice activities that would push learners to use CSs (Dornyei & Thurrell, 1994;  Farech & Kasper, 1983;  Faucette, 2001). This is not the case in books reviewed in this study. The same problem is likely to be demonstrated by other books as indicated by AFL teachers’ negative perceptions about books they are using when it comes to highlighting communication strategies (El Essawi, 2014). Though books reviewed did cover some of the other aspects of communicative competence very successfully (especially linguistic competence), this gap in highlighting CSs needed for developing strategic competence remains an important problem.

In an attempt to suggest means of addressing this gap in AFL textbooks, the following section presents examples of activities used for enhancing CSs which appeared in sources about EFL teaching.

Orientation activities
Some of the activities about increasing learners’ awareness of targeted strategies are suggested by Brown (2007) under ‘Strategy-based Instruction’. These include brainstorming activities which target increasing learners’ awareness of expressions they already know that could be used to address communication breakdowns. Discussions of how such expressions or language structures could help bridge breakdowns would follow.

Other activities suggested by Brown (2007) for strategy enhancement include listing types of targeted behavior to avoid break downs, forming ‘The 10 commandments of successful communication’. For example books and/or classrooms could include colorful charts that reads as follows ‘If you do not know how to say it:

-  Say it differently (for circumlocution),

- Ask for assistance (for appeals for help),

- Use an all purpose word like البتاع اللي – اسمه/اسمها إيه اللي - الشيء اللي etc..

Textbook/teacher could then focus in each lesson on means of putting such commandments to practice. Brown (2007) also suggests that books should include in each chapter sections that address targeted strategies using anecdotes, info, or titles like: ‘tips’, ‘strategies for success’, or (as we will see later) ‘study strategies’ and/or ‘exam preparation’. In such sections, students are ‘oriented’ to the targeted strategy and how it could serve (or save) learner during communication. This suggestion is put to practice by a number of EFL/ESL textbooks.

For example in a textbook entitled Nice Talking With You Faucette (2001) notes the following ‘hint’: “Ask to hear it again: Sometimes it is difficult to hear what your partner says. You can say: ‘Pardon me?’ to ask to hear it again” (p.5 in Faucette 2001:18) or ‘Sometimes your partner uses a word you do not know. Use this phrase when you want to understand. ‘what does that mean?’ (p.68 in Faucette 2001:18). It is notable that each of the above ‘hints’ fulfills a dual purpose since it introduces the benefit of the strategy (orientation) and suggests lexical items/expressions that could be used to carry it out (exposure). It is interesting to note here that orientation is often related to exposure, &/or  practice. For example, author presents an explicit explanation of circumlocution followed by an activity that requires students to describe objects (p. 49 in Faucette, 2001, p.17).

CS are also introduced in EFL textbooks under titles like ‘study strategies/help/skills’ or ‘learning strategies’ or under ‘exam preparations’ with ‘specific references to international certification’ (Vettorel, 2018, p.49). For example, in presenting useful exam techniques, the following is noted in a speaking strategies’ box ‘In a conversation, don’t worry much if you don’t know or can’t remember a word. Don’t stop talking and just try to explain what you mean by using different words. Also don’t worry too much about making mistakes’ or ‘while you are speaking to the examiner, at times you will not be able to find the appropriate words to express yourself. In order not to remain silent in a conversation, use the following expressions while you are looking for the right word’ (Vettorel, 2018, p. 49). Using titles like the ones mentioned above would be useful in attracting students’ attention to the CSs introduced. This could be followed by explanations about their usage to avoid communication breakdowns.

Exposure activities
One of the most obvious ways to expose learners to targeted CSs is through modeling those strategies in mini dialogues where strategy is being used to address communication breakdowns. This should be supported by highlighting expressions and linguistic structures needed when using strategy. Faucette (2001) presents a good example of how to successfully fulfill the above while benefiting from elicitation and discussion activities. Activity, geared towards dealing with communication breakdowns that result from not knowing a word, suggests that students start by brainstorming to elicit means of dealing with this problem. This is followed by a listening activity where students are asked to trace CS used in a conversation. By focusing on targeted CS, students are expected to detect language features for carrying it out. They are also trained to focus on and analyze native speaker dialogues in real life to detect strategies they use to deal with communication breakdowns.  A class discussion is then initiated to highlight other effective strategies for fulfilling the targeted goals (Faucette, 2001, p.20).

In Dornyei and Thurrell’s book Conversation and Dialogues in Action (1992) teachers are advised to work on exposure in three stages. Stage one is demonstration of a communication problem for which using a CS is needed. For example, teacher starts by asking difficult or unexpected questions or speak unintelligibly which would normally force interlocutor/students to buy time or request repetition (requesting assistance); and so on. This form of demonstration acts as an exposure to the problem (not CS). Stage two is elicitation of needed CS & examples of linguistic structures lexical and/or grammatical needed to execute it. Lists of other language structures could also presented.

Practice activities
This stage generally aims at entrenching forms of learning that students were exposed to through repeated usage in controlled, semi-controlled, and free contexts. Activities traced for training learners to fulfill this purpose could be divided into two groups: all purpose activities that could be used to practice any CS and specific purpose activities geared towards practicing a specific strategy.

1. General activities:

Brown (2007) presents an interesting practice activity adapted from Chamot, O’Malley & Kupper (1992). This is the diary activity. The activity could read as follows “For next week, keep a notebook about how you dealt with communication breakdowns that you faced during the week. Did you use any CSs? What strategies did you use?” The activity then would use a table that includes under the title “What I do to address communication breakdowns” a list of favorable strategies (for example: used the all-purpose word ‘thing’, or said the statement …. when I did not know the word ….) followed by days of the week. Learner is supposed to specify strategy and mark the day in which s/he used it. This is expected to increase awareness of CSs, encourage learner to use them, and increase focus on their benefit. Another activity could be to video-tape an interaction with a student/native speaker, then discuss breakdowns, means of addressing them, and give each other feedback about their success in usage of CSs. Students could also attempt to talk without stopping about a topic they do not know much about, then discuss breakdowns and how to avoid them.

Dornyei and Thurrell (1992) suggest reflection on issues like cultural differences that might make using certain CSs problematic. Forexample reflection on whether using expressions/questions they are trained to use are acceptable in their culture. If not, how do they indicate that they do not understand something? Which phrases do they find useful” (p. 54). Other issues for reflection are levels of formality related to language resources presented by activities, whether language resources are useful, ease of using language resources, other ways for practicing the same strategy, etc. Another type of activities in the same book is extending of role paly dialogues. Students are expected to extend an already existing dialogue and/or creating dialogues that involve a simulation of a conversation where the targeted CS is used to address breakdowns. For example: Extending an already existing dialogue and/or creating dialogues that require calling for assistance (targeted CS) to pre-empt a breakdown of communication caused by misunderstanding of certain words that were intentionally inserted by teacher in conversation. Though Dornyei and Thurrell (1992) suggestions were addressed to teachers in a resource book, it is obvious that suggested process of reflection would also be useful in increasing learners’ awareness of use of CSs.

2. Activities for eliciting a specific strategy:

Examples from EFL/ESL as introduced by studies that analyzed teaching material like Faucette (2001) and Vettorel (2018) include:

• Paraphrasing : Students reword sentences while competing as teams or one student would read a problem, rephrase it, while the second student attempts to address it.
• Comprehension checks: Giving directions while checking to ensure clarity to listener.
• Appeal for help: Students make statements in which part is replaced by ‘blah,blah, interlocutor is supposed to request repetition and/ or ask questions about missing info to detect it. Students could be encouraged to pretend forgetting or intentionally misuse the right word. This is expected to lead to requesting help plus attempting to describe (circumlocution)
• Circumlocution: Students attempt to guess an object by asking questions about its features and uses. A very similar and very widely used game in Arab communities as well as AFL classes (though not in textbooks analyzed) is عروستي where learners describe to a colleague an object without mentioning it while asking him/her to guess what object is. Though this game does invoke usage of circumlocution, unless the benefit of circumlocution in bridging communication breakdowns is highlighted, many students could only regard such activities as interesting game or forms of practice.
• Interpretive summary and/or requests (repetition requests, clarification requests, and confirmation requests.): Speaker provides information (for example directions) while interlocutor asks questions to fully understand directions using appropriate language resources (vocab., expressions, and/or language structures).

CONCLUSION
This paper has attempted to look at how a sample of AFL textbooks deal with an important component of communicative competence, namely strategic competence through studying the extent to which such books focus on CSs and the level at which such focus happens. It has to be mentioned here that the sample used was limited and therefore results are not generalizable. Despite the above, results do flag the need for a more structured focus on Strategic competence.  I have to add here that the books analyzed had clear strong points and interesting activities that deal with other dimensions of communicative competence (linguistic, sociocultural, and discourse). This is in and by itself  encouraging since it means that if/when CSs are addressed benefit of such books would increase tremendously. Hence the need to highlight the problem and to present pedagogical suggestions that could help teachers to deal with it.

Address for correspondence: ressawi@aucegypt.edu

REFERENCES

Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1(1), pp. 1–47.

Celce-Murcia, M. and Dornyei, Z. 1995. Communicative competence: a pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics. 6 (2), pp.5-35.

Dornyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. 1992. Conversation and dialogues in action. New York: Prentice Hall.

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. 1983. Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In: Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. eds. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman, pp. 20–60.

Faucette, P. 2001. A Pedagogical Perspective on Communication Strategies: benefits of training and an analysis of English language teaching materials. Second Language Studies. 19(2), pp. 1-40.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.

Maleki, A. 2007. Teachability of communication strategies: an Iranian experience. System. 35 (4), pp. 583–594.

Moattarian, Asa. 2012. Iranian EFL learners’ perception and performance of communication strategies in different mediums of communication. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2 (11), pp. 2349-2356.

Nakatani, Y. 2010. Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: a classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal. 94 (1), pp. 116–136.

Nakatani, Y. and Goh, C. 2007. A review of oral communication strategies: focus on interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives. In: Cohen, A. D. & Macaro, E. eds. Language learner strategies: thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 207–227.

Puffer, Ch. D. 2006. Questions as strategies to encourage speaking in content and language integrated classrooms. In: Uso-Juan,E. and Martinez- Flor, A. eds. Current trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Berlin, New York: Mount de Gruyter, pp. 187-214.

Rabab’ah, G., & Bulut, D. 2007. Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 43(2), pp. 83–106.

Rabab’ah, G. 2016. The effect of communication strategy training on the development of EFL learners’ strategic competence and oral communicative ability. Psycholinguistic Research. 45 (3), pp. 625-651.

Sukirlan, M. 2014. Teaching communication strategies in an EFL class of tertiary level. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 4 (10), pp. 2033-2041.

Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. eds. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 235–253.

Rabab’ah, Ghaleb. 2016. The effect of communication strategy training on the development of EFL Learners’ strategic competence and oral communicative ability. Psycholinguistic Research. 45, pp. 625-651.

Vettorel, P. 2018. ELF and communication strategies: are they taken into account in ELT materials? RELC Journal. 49 (1), pp. 58-73.

Zheng, Z. 2004. Communicative competence and strategic competence. Sino-US English Teaching. 1 (10), pp.70-75.

APPENDIX 1
1. Kallamni Arabi bishwash:
Author: Samia Louis.
Publisher: American University in Cairo Press.
Year of publication: 2008
Number of modules: 10 units
Book structure and learning outcomes: The book introduction reveals that it is for elementary students. It also asserts that it is aligned with ACTFL guidelines. It focuses on all 4 skills as well as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Introduction also makes clear that the book targets helping students to communicate in a set survival situations, build students’ structural knowledge, and using a ‘reasonable range of both spoken and written Arabic. Table of contents also reveals that each module focuses on a specific language function. At this level functions are related to everyday life needs like greetings; asking for objects, asking about: people, place of objects, time, prices, etc. Each lesson includes a main dialogue followed by other shorter dialogues for practicing listening comprehension and for practicing targeted function (listen and repeat). There are a variety of basically accuracy-oriented
activities and limited communication activities.

2. Kallam Gamiil:
Author: Abbas Al-Tonsi; Laila Al-Sawi; Suzanne Massoud
Publisher: American University in Cairo Press.
Year of publication: 2010
Number of lessons: 12
Book structure and learning outcomes: The book has a very short introduction that attempts to encourage teachers’ creativity through adding their own touch and material (additional activities, more pictures, in and out of class tasks etc). The contents list however is mainly geared towards stating language structures that each lesson will cover. There is no attempt to highlight functions or situations that each lesson covers.

3. Dardasha
Author: Moustafa Mughazy
Publisher: NALRC Press. Madison, Wisconsin
Year of publication: 2004
Number of modules: 11 units
Book structure and learning outcomes: The book introduction makes clear that its goal is to help novice learners communicate in real life situations using the appropriate variety in various contexts using educated colloquial speech. Dialogues are used to present new
information, functions, language structures and cultural themes. The book distinguishes itself by the effort to introduce cultural notes and explain culturally loaded expressions. It also includes activities that are both accuracy oriented and fluency oriented.

APPENDIX 2 

Kallam Gamiil: Lesson ten 

• لو سمحت أنا عايزة أروح سفارة الإمارات، حضرتك عارف هي فين؟ 

+ بصي حضرتك ... تمشي لحد إشارة المرور، وبعدين تدخلي شمال. ماتقدريش تلفي من الميدان، تلفي من أول فاتحة. تفضلي ماشية في شارع التحرير، تعدي الشارع لما توصلي لحد فندق شيراتون، تدخلي شمال بعده على طول. 

• تقصد الشارع اللي قبل الكوبري؟ 

+ بالظبط. 

• بس دا إتجاه واحد. 

+ لأ إتجاهين لحد قبل السفارة بخطوتين، تقدري تركني العربية في أي شارع جانبي وتمشي لحد السفارة. 

• ألف شكر. 

Kallam Gamiil: Lesson ten adjusted to include communication breakdowns and CSs that deal with them: 

• لو سمحت أنا عايزة أروح سفارة الإمارات، حضرتك عارف هي فين؟ 

+ إيه ؟ مش واخد بالي .. بتقولي إيه حضرتك؟ (indicating lack of understanding)  

• المكان اللي بناخد منه الفيزا لدبي. (circumlocution) 

+ آه ...تقصدي سفارة الإمارات؟ (interpretive summary) 

بصي حضرتك ... تمشي لحد إشارة المرور، وبعدين تدخلي شمال. ماتقدريش تلفي من الميدان، تلفي من أول فاتحة. تفضلي ماشية في شارع التحرير، تعدي الشارع لما توصلي لحد فندق شيراتون، تدخلي شمال بعده على طول. 

• معلش ممكن مرة تانية بس براحة شوية لو سمحت (repetition request)  

+ بقول لحضرتك تمشي لحد إشارة المرور، وبعدين تدخلي شمال. تلفي من أول فاتحة. تفضلي ماشية في شارع التحرير .. واخدة بالك معايا؟ (comprehension check) 

• أيوة تمام. 

+ تعدي الشارع لما توصلي لحد فندق شيراتون، تدخلي شمال بعده على طول. 

• يعني أنت بتقول لما أوصل فندق شيراتون أدخل شمال؟ ( confirmation request/interpretive summary) 

+ أيوه مظبوط كدا. 

• بس الشارع دا إتجاه واحد. 

+ لأ إتجاهين لحد قبل السفارة بخطوتين، تقدري تركني العربية في أي شارع جانبي وتمشي لحد السفارة. 

• ألف شكر.