Teaching Listening and Speaking in Second and Foreign Language Contexts 9781350093539, 9781350093522, 9781350093560, 9781350093553

Citation preview

Teaching Listening and Speaking in Second and Foreign Language Contexts

Online resources to accompany this book are available at: http://bloomsbury.com/cw/teachinglistening-and-speaking-in-l2-contexts/. Please type the URL into your web browser and follow the instructions to access the Companion Website. If you experience any problems, please contact Bloomsbury at: [email protected]

Also available from Bloomsbury Language Learner Strategies, Michael James Grenfell and Vee Harris Rethinking TESOL in Diverse Global Settings, Tim Marr and Fiona English Teaching and Learning the English Language, Richard Badger Teaching Literature in Modern Foreign Languages, edited by Fotini Diamantidaki Using Literature in English Language Education, edited by Janice Bland

Teaching Listening and Speaking in Second and Foreign Language Contexts Kathleen M. Bailey

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2020 Copyright © Kathleen M. Bailey, 2020 Kathleen M. Bailey has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. vi constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover image © Lazy_Bear / iStock All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: PB: ePDF: eBook:

978-1-3500-9353-9 978-1-3500-9352-2 978-1-3500-9355-3 978-1-3500-9354-6

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents



Acknowledgments

vi

1

Teaching Speaking and Listening: An Introduction

1

2

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

17

3

Language Proficiency and Communicative Competence

31

4

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Speaking and Listening

45

5

Teaching Listening in a Second or Foreign Language

61

6

Teaching Speaking in a Second or Foreign Language

79

7

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

95

8

Tasks and Projects in Teaching Listening and Speaking

111

9

Speaking and Listening Fluency

125

10

Teaching Pronunciation in a Second or Foreign Language

139

11

Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

153

12

Assessing L2 Listening

165

13

Assessing L2 Speaking

181

14

Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

193



References Index

205 214

Acknowledgments

First, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Andy Curtis, for encouraging me to develop a proposal for this book. He also gave me helpful feedback on the first version of the proposal. Next, I am very grateful for the enthusiasm and support of Maria Giovanna Brauzzi at Bloomsbury. She has been very patient and helpful throughout the entire process. Here at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS), this project was supported by a Wyckoff grant, which paid for the work of both Katherine Benton and Matthew McElfresh. Katherine served as the first editorial assistant and project manager. When she graduated, Matthew took over. Both of them kept me focused and did a great deal of word processing as well as both internal and library research. Kalina Swanson and Quiamony Gaskins also helped a great deal with the word processing. As we were nearing completion of the draft, Matthew was my editor: He checked citations, encouraged paraphrases, recommended changes, and rigorously trimmed my overblown prose. Kalina helped a great deal with the final manuscript preparation. I also want to thank the students in my seminar on the teaching of speaking and listening in L2 contexts, particularly those in the spring semester of 2019. They read each chapter in draft form and commented on both the contents and the prose. Lilli Barrilleaux, Bret Flowers, Quiamony Gaskins, Jonathan Maynard, Jiayao Shen, Xiaying Zhuang, and Matthew McElfresh all gave me helpful feedback. Finally, the volume benefited from both the critiques and encouragement of three anonymous reviewers. I am grateful to them for their helpful ideas.

Chapter 1 Teaching Speaking and Listening: An Introduction

1.1 Introduction It is likely that people have been speaking and listening to one another since that mysterious era when human beings became human. Members of all known civilizations communicate using their productive and receptive skills. (In the Deaf community, those skills operate through signed languages, but I don’t have the expertise to discuss that important topic.) This book has been written for language teachers—particularly those who are embarking on their careers. I hope the volume also will be helpful to experienced language teachers, including those who are undergoing shifts in assignments or even major career changes. I also hope that teacher educators will find it useful. In this volume, I want to share some selected research findings and relevant theory in a way that teachers of any language will find both informative and interesting. My own experience has been teaching English, so most of my examples will be in English. Nevertheless, I will try to discuss teaching techniques and research concepts that you can use, no matter what language you teach (or plan to teach). At the beginning of each chapter, I will contextualize the key issues with a brief introduction, and some “Guiding Questions.” These are academically oriented questions intended to raise key issues we will address in the next section: “What We Know.” In that part of each chapter, I will review some of the literature that I find to be the most compelling about the topic. Some of those resources will be from recent publications, while others will be from older work that has influenced our field in important ways. In some instances, I will summarize and paraphrase the literature, and, in other cases, I will share quotes from the original authors, particularly in defining key terms. In every chapter I will also share “Reflections”—retrospections about language learning and teaching situations I have observed or experienced personally that exemplify the issues addressed in the chapter. In the “Practical Activities” sections, I will share teaching ideas based on what we do know. These ideas also include activities that have worked well for me as a teacher and a language learner. I share them not as “best practices” but rather as good practices that may be relevant to you and your learners in your own (future) contexts. It is only fair that I also acknowledge some of the challenges you face, or will face, as a language teacher. For this reason, every chapter will have a section called “Challenges.” Each chapter will conclude with end-of-chapter activities. First there will be several “Discussion Questions.” Unlike the “Guiding Questions” that begin the chapters, these end-of-chapter questions

2

Teaching Listening and Speaking

are intended to stimulate thought and discussion by helping you to connect your personal experiences and professional goals to the issues covered in the chapter. The next section of end-of-chapter materials consists of “Follow-up Tasks.” These are brief tasks or larger-scale projects that will help you to put into practice the ideas covered in the chapter. If you are currently teaching or in a teacher training program, I encourage you to work on these tasks with colleagues or classmates. Every chapter includes suggestions for “Technological Tools” that should be useful. I am not suggesting products you can buy. Instead, these digital tools include websites that offer free materials and resources teachers and learners can use to promote target language development. Finally, the “Suggested Readings” section is intended to help you pursue areas of interest to you. It is not possible to cover everything language teachers need to know about teaching speaking and listening in one book. For this reason, I hope to guide you to additional resources for your continued professional development. It is important to add one more point here: I try to write as I teach. That is, whether my students are language learners, pre-service teachers, or in-service teachers, I want to present ideas and structure activities in ways that make sense to them. As an author, this stance means I write in the first person instead of using a more academic style. I also try to anticipate—and sometimes overtly raise—questions I think readers would like to ask and challenges they might face in understanding and applying the concepts presented here. I will also recycle material from time to time, in order to make connections across chapters.

Guiding Questions 1 What are foreign language and second language contexts for teaching and learning? 2 What are multilingualism and plurilingualism? How do they relate to language learning and teaching? 3 What are the components of spoken language? 4 What are declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge? How do they differ? 5 What are transactional language and interactional language? What is the ludic function of language? 6 What are the differences between written language and speech?

1.2 What We Know In each “What We Know” section, I will address the “Guiding Questions” and provide information that contextualizes the rest of the chapter. In this chapter, we will review some key vocabulary related to the teaching of speaking and listening, so that you can delve into the rest of the book with confidence and ease. In addition, this chapter will illustrate the topics and structure of the subsequent chapters and the types of resources the book will provide. It is my fervent hope that in finishing this chapter you will feel empowered and excited about reading more.

Introduction

3

1.2.1 Second and Foreign Language Teaching Contexts This book focuses on the teaching of speaking and listening to people who are learning a new language or are improving their abilities in one that is not their native language. The language people aspire to learn is often called the target language (TL). The context might be one of learning the TL where it is widely spoken. That situation is typically referred to as a second language (SL) context (e.g., people learning English in Australia, or learning Spanish in Argentina). In contrast, studying a language in a context where it is not widely used is called foreign language (FL) learning (e.g., learning Japanese in Guatemala, or Mandarin in Canada). Both FL and SL contexts are referred to with the abbreviation L2; however, the SL-FL contrast is not as clear-cut as it may seem. For example, Hong Kong is widely perceived as a bilingual speech context, where Cantonese and English have been used side by side for many years. But parts of Hong Kong are largely monolingual, both in terms of speech and written texts. In different neighborhoods, for instance, you can see road signs and advertisements that are written entirely in Chinese, partly in English, or largely in English. This example is related to multilingual contexts and plurilingual speakers.

1.2.2 Multilingualism and Plurilingualism Multilingualism is defined as “the presence in a geographical area, large or small, of more than one ‘variety of language,’ i.e., the mode of speaking of a social group whether it is formally recognised as a language or not” (King, 2017, p. 6). We should also note that “in such an area, individuals may be monolingual, speaking only their own variety” (p. 6). Thus, the Hong Kong situation described above can be characterized as a multilingual context. Both Mandarin and Cantonese are spoken, as are British, Australian, Indian, and North American varieties of English, among others. In contrast, plurilingualism is “the repertoire of varieties of language which many individuals use, and is therefore the opposite of monolingualism; it includes the language variety referred to as ‘mother tongue’ or ‘first language’ and any number of other languages or varieties” (p. 6). But we should acknowledge that “in some multilingual areas, some individuals are monolingual and some are plurilingual” (p. 6). The language learners you teach will bring many linguistic resources to your classroom. Some of those learners will be monolingual and some will be plurilingual. It is important to recognize that the language abilities our students have are assets to build upon, not problems to overcome. We turn now to the various components of spoken language, which learners must be able to interpret while listening and produce while speaking.

1.2.3 Components of Spoken Language Language teachers often talk about teaching lessons on one or more of the four skills. Speaking and writing are called the productive skills, because the students are producing language. Listening and reading are called the receptive skills, because the students are receiving the language when they listen and read. Some courses focus on one or two of these skills, while others take an integrated approach, in which all four skills are taught and practiced.

4

Teaching Listening and Speaking

When we speak and listen, whether in our native language or in an additional language, many different linguistic subsystems are involved. Becoming proficient in a new language entails developing all of these elements and being able to use them appropriately and accurately at will. The subsystems are usually referred to as the components of language. At this point, we will briefly consider the vocabulary associated with the language components involved in teaching L2 speaking and listening, starting with the smallest units. This traditional approach is appropriate as a starting point because, for much of the history of language teaching, lessons have focused on the components of the TL. Lessons often started with presentations and explanations about one of those components, followed by opportunities to practice using it. This procedure has changed considerably in recent years, but, in this chapter, we will review the building blocks of languages as a way of learning the technical terms used in the profession.

1.2.3.1 The Sound System The individual meaning-bearing sounds of a language are called phonemes. The consonants and vowels of a language are referred to as the segmental phonemes, because they can be divided and recombined. My great-grandmother taught me to read using the recombinatory properties of the segmental phonemes by introducing me to the “AT family”: “A” was the mother and “T” was the father. Their children were words like bat, cat, fat, hat, mat, pat, rat, sat, and so on. Changing the initial consonants to form different words illustrates this segmental characteristic of phonemes. A tricky part of learning to read in a new language and to pronounce written words is understanding how the sounds of speech are related to the written symbols (the graphemes) that represent them. Some languages, such as Korean and Spanish, have a high phoneme-grapheme correspondence. That is, the written symbols closely match the sound system as it is spoken. Other languages, like English, have a low phoneme-grapheme correspondence: The sounds of the language are spelled with many different symbols and various symbols can represent many different sounds. Another very important way to convey meaning is through the use of suprasegmental phonemes. The prefix supra- means “above,” and indeed these elements of the sound system function “above” the segmental phonemes. That is, they are overlaid upon the words we utter, and they convey various meanings that become attached to those words. The suprasegmentals include pitch, stress, and intonation. Here is an example that shows how suprasegmental phonemes convey meaning using the same lexical items in the same word order, but with different emphases. How would you pronounce this sentence to convey three different attitudes? 1 He’s a doctor. (statement of fact) 2 He’s a doctor? (surprise at new information) 3 He’s a doctor!? (absolute incredulity at the idea that such a fool would be a doctor) In these three utterances, it is the suprasegmental phonemes that create the meaning differences, rather than the words or the word order. The study of “the distinctive sound units of a language and their relationship to one another” is called phonology (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985, p. 216). A related concept, phonetics, focuses on three main areas: articulatory phonetics (the study of speech production), acoustic phonetics (the

Introduction

5

characteristics of sound waves), and auditory phonetics (the study of how listeners perceive sounds of speech) (Richards et al., 1985). We will explore these issues in depth in Chapter 10, when we focus on pronunciation.

1.2.3.2 Words and Word Order Rules The phonemes of a language combine to form morphemes—the building blocks of words. Free morphemes are individual words, such as truth, dance, and happy. There are also bound morphemes— parts of words that don’t stand alone. They include both prefixes and suffixes (and some languages have infixes). Examples in English include un- and -ness and -er and -ful. More than one bound morpheme can join with a free morpheme to change meaning and grammatical information. For example, -ness added to an adjective creates a noun: happiness. The suffix -ful added to a noun creates an adjective: truthful. But there are also possibilities for multiple combinations, such as unhappiness and truthfulness. Morphology is the study of morphemes and how they combine. These components do not operate in isolation. Indeed, morphemes and phonemes interact in interesting systematic ways that influence pronunciation. For example, the English plural morpheme, which is often represented in writing as -s, sounds like either an “s” or a “z,” or more like “iz” depending on the sounds that precede it. Think about how we pronounce the plural forms of three words in English: cat, dog, horse. If you say these words aloud in their plural forms (cats, dogs, horses), you will hear the difference in the pronunciation of the word-final phonemes (as “s” and “z” and “iz,” respectively). These differences are caused by the preceding sound as speech is produced. Words also combine following particular patterns. Syntax is the part of language that involves the rules of word order that determine how we use words to generate phrases, clauses, and sentences. For instance, the syntactic rules of English lead to structures such as questions (“Who taught the class?”), passive sentences (“The class was taught by a substitute teacher”), and relative clauses (“The man whom you saw was the substitute teacher”). There are possible variations in these rules related to levels of formality. For example, instead of “The man whom you saw,” someone might say: “The man you saw,” “The man who you saw,” or “The man that you saw.” Various languages have different syntactic rules, but all languages have rules about how words are sequenced to generate messages.

1.2.3.3 Discourse Words and sentences or utterances combine to form units of discourse. There are many different kinds of discourse, but what does this term mean? A piece of discourse is an instance of spoken or written language with describable internal relationships of form and meaning (e.g., words, structures, cohesion) that relate coherently to an external communicative function or purpose and a given audience or interlocutor. (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 4)

We should note that discourse is not necessarily “larger” than syntax. Certainly, speeches and essays are stretches of discourse. But a stop sign with the single word STOP is also a bit of discourse, as is the brief utterance “Next!” when people are standing in line, waiting for service.

6

Teaching Listening and Speaking

The foregoing discussion introduces some of the most important concepts for teaching speaking and listening. Other key terms will be defined as we go along. I readily admit there is a confusing amount of jargon associated with professional discussions about teaching speaking and listening in L2 contexts, but the key terms defined here are essential to discussions of the basic components of spoken language. As language teachers and learners, we often use the more general pedagogical labels: pronunciation, grammar (which includes both syntax and morphology), vocabulary, and so on. One of my goals in writing this book is to help you feel confident about your knowledge of the concepts and vocabulary related to teaching speaking and listening. I also hope you will feel empowered to use these concepts yourself in discussions with your classmates or colleagues.

1.2.4 Knowing About Versus Knowing How As language learners, until we become proficient in a new language, trying to communicate our ideas usually involves choosing the right vocabulary and pronouncing the words correctly—in terms of both the segmental and suprasegmental phonemes. We must also try to employ the right morphemes and syntactic arrangements in our speech in order to communicate our intended meanings clearly. Certainly, knowing both the grammar rules of our TL and the meaning of many vocabulary items can be helpful in communicating well. But there’s a difference between knowing the rules and being able to deploy them. Knowing about something and being able to explain it (declarative knowledge) are important; however, having declarative knowledge about vocabulary and grammar is not enough. The ability to use such knowledge is referred to as procedural knowledge. In short, declarative knowledge entails knowing about, while procedural knowledge involves knowing how (Anderson, 1980, 1983). Ullman’s (2004) review of the literature suggests “a shift from the declarative to the procedural system during late second language learning” (p. 257). Part of our responsibility as language teachers is to help our students make that shift in their speaking and listening skills. Some language teaching materials, tests, and curricula have emphasized learners’ declarative knowledge over their procedural knowledge. For example, if students do well on examinations that require them to identify the parts of speech in TL sentences but cannot carry on a simple conversation, their procedural knowledge is lacking even if they score well on tests of their declarative knowledge. In order to communicate in a new language, learners must have procedural knowledge that enables them to convey their ideas, articulate their needs, and express their emotions.

1.2.5 Transactional, Interactional, and Ludic Language An important distinction is whether spoken discourse is transactional or interactional. Transactional speaking and listening involve trying to get or give information or services (Nunan, 1991). For example, talking to a bank clerk to correct a problem with your account is an example of transactional language. In contrast, interactional language is more social in nature. Its purposes include enjoyment, bonding, getting to know other people, and so on. But, let’s be clear, once again this contrast is not an either/or distinction. A conversation that is primarily social can have transactional features and vice versa. For instance, if you are looking for someone to share a flat or an apartment with (a transactional context),

Introduction

7

you would want to negotiate payment and responsibilities (transactional purposes), but you would also want to learn about the individual’s interests, lifestyle, personality, and so on (interactional purposes). Likewise, if you want your friend to loan you his bicycle, you might ask how things are going, what plans he has for the weekend, and so on, before asking to use the bike. Please note that the term interactional here has a related but slightly different meaning from interactive or interaction, as these words are used in this book (see Chapter 7). In the context of teaching speaking and listening, interaction is defined as verbal exchanges between two or more people. Interactive communication is composed of such exchanges. The term interactional—in contrast to transactional— refers to language exchanges for social purposes. Another kind of language is playful: “Ludic discourse involves the use of language for the purpose of amusing and entertaining oneself or others” (Tarone, 2005, p. 490, italics in the original). In ludic discourse “there is no information exchange, and the primary focus is not on establishing or maintaining social relationships” (p. 490). Ludic discourse involves jokes, puns, riddles, comedy routines, and many forms of storytelling. Included in the ludic category is language play—language use that is “a socially constructed phenomenon which is non-literal, inherently entertaining and rule-oriented” (p. 490). Language play has been found to be helpful in L2 acquisition. Here is an example of language play between Joe (a native speaker of English) and Angel (a native speaker of Spanish whose family had moved to Los Angeles from Mexico). The conversation has a teasing tone to it (I have heard the recording). J: That’s like on—Ernie and Bert—(roar) A: No, like a crazy boy! (laugh) J: (laugh) That’s more like it. (high pitch:) What? A: (chuckling) Like a crazy boy! J: (even higher:) What? A: (softer) Like a crazy boy. J: Like a mazy—like a—a— A: Crazy! J: I—I mean— li’ li’ (pretending to stutter) I mean—I—I—I mean—I mean—I mean—I mean—I mean— (normal voice:) I mean a crazy? A: A crazy. J: A crazy what, a crazy daisy? A: No, a crazy you. J: Oh! Oh! Oh! A: [You are] J: [Oh!] A: Crazy. J: Oh! (10x). (Peck, 1980, p. 161)

8

Teaching Listening and Speaking

This banter goes back and forth at a fast pace until Angel produces the grammatical utterance: “You are crazy!” It is thought that such interactions may promote L2 acquisition.

1.2.6 Introducing Spoken Grammar Many authors have contrasted written and spoken language. Here I will summarize distinctions drawn by van Lier (1995). Of course, the reception of spoken language is auditory, while written language reception is visual. But because of these two key characteristics, we should also note that while written language, to some extent, is permanent, and thus allows for delayed reception of messages across time and space, most spoken messages are temporary, which necessitates immediate reception. Unless we are talking about audio or video recordings, spoken language usually involves (or at least permits) immediate feedback from our interlocutor(s) in face-to-face contexts. With written language, however, feedback is typically delayed, or even non-existent. In spoken language, meaning is conveyed in part through prosody (the combination of rhythm, stress, and intonation). In written language, those signals are communicated through punctuation and variations in type font, as shown in the “He’s a doctor” example above. Most written communication permits planning and even editing, while, in most spoken language contexts, planning and editing are limited. (The exceptions, of course, are planned and extemporaneous speeches, which we will revisit in Chapter 6.) Developing declarative knowledge of grammar rules can be helpful in terms of raising learners’ awareness of the properties of the TL; however, traditional views of grammar often have been based on the norms of written language produced by educated writers. For example, English language learners were frequently taught that a complete sentence includes a subject and a verb marked for tense: “The students celebrated after the exam” and “The party will be next Saturday.” But, in normal speech, questions such as “What did the students do after the exam?” or “When will the party be held?” typically would be answered very briefly: “Celebrated!” and “Next Saturday.” In fact, normal day-to-day speech frequently doesn’t follow the patterns used in written grammar. For example, the question: “Do you have time for coffee?” might be rendered as “Have time for coffee?” or “Got time for coffee?” or “Time for coffee?” or even just “Coffee?” With regard to English language teaching, Lazaraton (2014) points out that such forms “are ubiquitous in spoken language and do not appear in writing, nor do they show up in many scripted dialogues presented in ESL/EFL [English as a second language/English as a foreign language] teaching materials” (p. 108). What we say is called an utterance, which may or may not take the syntactic form of a sentence. From the examples above, we can see that the structure of spoken language does not always match the structures of written language. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for language teachers to demand complete sentences from language learners in class, even though that is not necessarily what happens in natural spoken discourse. Depending on the communication situations which language learners face, they will probably need to be able to understand and produce spoken language in both informal and more formal situations. If learners’ speech conforms largely to the rules of written grammar rather than those of spoken utterances, they can sound unnatural, overly formal, and even “bookish.” In contrast, if learners’ speech is too

Introduction

9

casual in situations that call for a more formal style, they can seem overly familiar and even offensive. For these reasons, “curricula that attend to the distinctions between conversational and formal oral production can prepare learners for real-life communication” (Hinkel, 2006, p. 117). In recent years, research on spoken language has demonstrated that it follows its own rules. We now actually think about and investigate the grammar of spoken language. Research on the characteristics and systematicity of conversation has given us a new understanding of human oral interaction. We will consider these issues in depth in future chapters.

1.2.7 An Example of Spoken Grammar My favorite example of spoken grammar comes from an ESL evening lesson in a class for community adults in Los Angeles. The teacher was leading an activity focused on the present perfect auxiliary verb forms has and have, based on eliciting responses to questions starting with: “Have you ever …?” As the lesson progressed, a student entered the classroom late. She was very upset, because someone had broken into her husband’s car and stolen some items. Her classmates and teacher sympathized with her and the grammar practice shifted slightly to focus on the specific question: “Have you ever had anything stolen?” Various students shared their experiences of being robbed. Soon the students asked the teacher if she had ever had anything stolen. She told the group about thefts she had experienced, including robberies at her apartment. Several students expressed their concerns about their young teacher. Next she told the students that a “peeping Tom” (a voyeur) had recently been arrested near her apartment. The group negotiated the meaning of “peeping Tom,” which apparently led to another slight shift in topic. The discourse had gradually become a discussion of weird things that happen in Los Angeles. As a result, the introduction of new vocabulary items superseded the focus on the present perfect. Here is the transcript of the next part of the lesson (from Allwright & Bailey, 1991, p. 58). In this transcript, the bracketed comments are glosses that provide some context. Words in parentheses indicate what the transcriber thought had been said. T: Here’s, here’s another useful word. [Writing on the blackboard.] Have you ever heard of a flasher? S3: Yeah, yeah. FS: Yeah, I (/hεda/) [= heard of] flasher. [One or two students laughing.] T: [S8’s name], what’s a flasher? S8: It’s like a flash. [Laughter.] T: What’s a flasher? S8: (Flasher?) S1: Somebody /∂t/ takes pictures. T: No. [Laughter.] S3: No. T: xx. What’s a flasher? You ever seen one? You ever seen a flasher?

10

Teaching Listening and Speaking

In the last line above, conversational grammar rules take over and the teacher herself abandons the grammar focus of the lesson when she deletes the auxiliary verb have. She asks the students: “You ever seen one? You ever seen a flasher?” Please note that I am not criticizing the teacher here. This example of genuine communication is simply a great illustration of how the patterns of spoken grammar come into play as the instructional discourse becomes increasingly more conversational. In fact, spoken language differs systematically from written language in many ways. For instance, as illustrated by the last line of this transcript, “in spoken English, the auxiliaries have and be and do-support often do not appear in yes/no questions” (Vanderbrook, Schlue, & Campbell, 1980, p. 68). It is important that we help our students understand and be able to produce spoken language that differs from written language. We will return to these issues in future chapters as we learn more about the features of interaction.

1.3 About This Book At this point in subsequent chapters, we will explore practical activities. In this introductory chapter, however, I want to offer a preview of the topics you will encounter in the rest of this book. Chapter 2 offers a brief, oversimplified history of teaching L2 speaking and listening through the ages; however, I won’t devote much space to the early history, because, in the late 1970s, language teaching methodology underwent a series of shifts. Our understanding of what language consists of began to change, which influenced language teaching methods (Curtis, 2017). For these reasons, Chapter 2 discusses how speaking and listening were taught in the various methods, some of which still influence language teaching today. In Chapter 3, we will explore the key concepts of language proficiency and communicative competence, which lay the foundation for the discussions that follow. The chapter focuses on communicative language teaching and examples of communicative activities to help students develop their speaking and listening proficiency. It also introduces communication strategies and describes teaching activities for promoting their use. Chapter 4 looks at speaking and listening relative to second language acquisition (SLA) research. It presents a few key ideas from SLA theory that are directly related to the teaching of speaking and listening. We will focus particularly on the implications of two important schools of thought: interactionism and sociocultural theory. Chapter 5 focuses on listening in SL or FL contexts. It examines the construct of listening comprehension, focusing on non-interactive listening. It also introduces authentic materials and key concepts from schema theory, based on research about using our background knowledge in processing incoming messages. Chapter 6 is about speaking in an SL or FL, primarily in non-interactive contexts. As noted earlier, L2 speaking is challenging in part because it involves the simultaneous deployment of multiple components of the TL. Furthermore, speaking in a new language can provoke anxiety—a topic that has generated a great deal of research in our field, which we will consider in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7 we will explore the intricacies of teaching interactive speaking and listening. While there are some situations in which we listen without speaking (addressed in Chapter 5) and some where

Introduction

11

we speak without listening (the focus of Chapter 6), much of the time, speaking and listening occur together. Hence, successful interactive speaking and listening depend upon understanding what our interlocutors say in order to respond appropriately. Chapter 8 explores task-based learning and teaching and project-based learning and teaching. Sample tasks and projects will be described that can be used to promote the development of speaking and listening skills for language learners across a range of ages, languages, contexts, and proficiency levels. In Chapter 9 we turn to the complex issue of speaking and listening fluency. Although laypersons often use the term fluency to refer to general language ability, it is actually a separate construct, which includes speech rate, length and placing of pauses, and hesitation markers. This chapter summarizes some research on fluency and offers teaching activities to help increase learners’ fluency in both speaking and listening. Chapter 10 is about L2 pronunciation, which can be a sensitive issue, since it is related to learners’ national, regional, social, and/or ethnic identities. This chapter explains three key issues about teaching pronunciation: accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. These are important aspects of speaking and listening proficiency in L2 language contexts. Chapter 11 deals with pragmatics, speech events, and speech acts. Knowing how to use language effectively and appropriately to get things done in specific contexts is a major component of communicative competence. This chapter explores the types of speech events language learners encounter and the speech acts and registers they must be able to use in order to accomplish their communication goals. Chapter 12 discusses ways to assess learners’ listening comprehension. A main goal of this chapter is to help readers develop practical classroom assessment tools and procedures that promote effective language learning and teaching, focusing on the macro skill of listening. To that end, we will start with understanding some key concepts in language assessment decisions that we must make as teachers. Chapter 13 introduces assessment of language learners’ speaking abilities across a wide range of proficiency levels in primarily non-interactive contexts. A key aim in this chapter is to help teachers develop testing tools and procedures to provide information useful to decision-making. A parallel goal is to ensure that our classroom-based and program-based tests of speaking lead to better learning and teaching. Chapter 14 focuses on assessing listening and speaking in interactive contexts, such as conversations, seminars, business meetings, and interviews. We will focus on role plays and oral proficiency interviews as procedures for assessing oral interaction. While listening and speaking can be (and often are) tested separately, the ability to use these two skills simultaneously is an important part of communicative competence in any language. This chapter also addresses teaching languages for specific purposes and introduces procedures for conducting needs assessments.

1.4 Reflections I grew up in a small rural town in Southern California. The main industries at the time were commercial flower growing and dairy farming. My family lived on a flower ranch, where we raised bird of paradise plants and gladiolus. My dad was the foreman of the ranch and my mother worked in the greenhouse.

12

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Our neighbors and most of the people who worked on the ranch spoke Spanish, so the work context was actually multilingual. Many years later, I wrote the following reflection about my early exposure to Spanish: Most of the people who worked on the ranch with us were Mexican—the men weeding and cutting the flowers, the women sorting them and packing them tightly in ten-gallon tins for shipment to the commercial flower market in Los Angeles. My siblings and I were surrounded by the sounds of Spanish from the time we could walk. I remember, before I went to kindergarten, taking my bologna sandwich outside at lunch time, to sit on the ground with the workers, where they would tip over a rusted ten-gallon tin shipping can, and build a fire in it to warm their tortillas, the air redolent with the scent of frijoles and eucalyptus. Our neighbors were the Cruzes. I played in the dirt with their dog and watched in horrified fascination as Mrs. Cruz routinely beheaded the chickens roaming free in their yard. (Bailey, 2010, p. 14)

Mrs. Cruz was a wonderful neighbor. She would let me feed the chickens and her dog, Shadow. She gave us homemade tamales for the holidays and told my mother and me how to make them (though we never really tried to learn). I remember that period of time before going to school as being relatively happy, even though we lived in a one-bedroom house: four children in the single bedroom and mom and dad sleeping on a hide-a-bed couch in the small living room. When the fifth baby came along, she was tucked into a crib next to the couch. The ranch was surrounded by upscale homes, but, until I went to school, I didn’t know we were poor. I knew the places where the irrigation pipes leaked and created tiny pools, lined with golden pebbles, where the tadpoles swam and white coral bells bloomed in early spring. I knew that my dad drove Pete, the plough horse, down the rows of bird of paradise plants, and we kids could feed Pete grass, but not sugar cubes or apples because they were too expensive. I don’t remember speaking Spanish, but I do remember my family used one language (English) and my friends on the ranch used something else. It wasn’t until I went to kindergarten, where everyone spoke English and no one spoke Spanish, that I realized that different people used the two different languages. My parents went to night school to learn Spanish. They used their rudimentary Spanish skills at work, but it also became their grown-up code for private communication, once my siblings and I began to spell. I was later sad to realize that, given the opportunities for hearing Spanish in my environment for many years, I had missed an opportunity to acquire the language: Under those circumstances, I should have learned Spanish easily from the workers and my neighbors. But there were invisible social barriers more powerful than our physical proximity, and like other Anglo children in our school district, I started to learn Spanish as a foreign language in junior high school. After two years of grammar exercises and vocabulary lists, I was bored with Spanish and switched to Latin in high school, because it would surely be helpful if I decided to become a doctor or a nun. (Bailey, 2010, p. 14).

Taking Latin classes in high school wasn’t really like learning a language, although the teacher was committed and creative. Latin was a recommended part of the pre-college track. In a sense, those classes were familiar—almost easy: Studying Latin consisted of textbook exercises, translating Latin texts into English, learning the grammatical cases, and taking vocabulary quizzes. There was never an expectation that we would

Introduction

13

speak the language, since Latin is no longer a spoken language. At best, the Latin classes gave me word-attack skills and a certain amount of meta-language that would be useful in the future for taking standardized tests. (Bailey, 2010, p. 14)

Meta-language is language about language. For instance, when we talk about parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.), we are using meta-language. Demonstrating our declarative knowledge often involves the use of meta-language. But, unfortunately, knowing meta-linguistic terms won’t help much if we are trying to interact in our TL. A main goal for us as teachers of L2 listening and speaking is to help our students develop their procedural knowledge so that they can actually use their new language.

1.5 Challenges There are many challenges associated with teaching and learning L2 speaking and listening and we will address several of them in future chapters. Here we will just consider two: learner opportunities for language use in SL and FL learning contexts, and the use of the learners’ first language in classroom lessons.

1.5.1 Language Use in Learning Contexts As indicated above, sometimes our students are learning their TL in FL contexts. In those situations, the learners may have limited opportunities for interaction in the TL outside the classroom. As a result, an interesting (but not insurmountable) challenge for FL teachers is to create lessons and follow-up activities that help students gain the opportunities for interaction they need to improve their speaking and listening abilities. In SL contexts, students may have opportunities for interacting in the TL outside the classroom; but we should not assume that TL interaction is always easily accessible. In some cases, learners live in neighborhoods or work in contexts that largely replicate the linguistic environment of their first language (L1) and their home cultures; that situation is referred to as high enclosure (Schumann, 1978). This term refers to “structural aspects of integration as opposed to cultural aspects (lifestyle and values)” (p. 78). Schumann explains that if the two language groups are separated in terms of schools, churches, clubs, and recreational facilities; if they have restrictions on marrying outside their specific group enforced by either custom or law; [or] if they tend to have separate professions, crafts or trades, then the degree of enclosure is considered high. (p. 78)

But sometimes the barriers to intermingling are not so firm or so apparent. Schumann continues: “If the two groups share the same social institutions, are free to marry outside their group and engage in the same professions, crafts and trades, then the degree of enclosure is low” (p. 78). He adds that “high enclosure maintains social distance, limits contact between the two groups and thus hinders acquisition of the target language. Low enclosure has the opposite effect” (pp. 78–79). Thus, a challenge for us as language teachers in both FL and SL situations is to understand the opportunities our students have for practicing the TL outside of our classrooms. We must also maximize TL use opportunities during lessons.

14

Teaching Listening and Speaking

1.5.2 Use of the First Language in Lessons A challenge that teachers often face in FL contexts (and in some SL contexts) is that, since the students usually share a common language, they may have little motivation to interact with one another in the TL during lessons. They may actually feel awkward about doing so. Language teachers may feel compelled to insist that learners use only the TL during lessons. This approach stems directly from concerns about the L1 being used widely by teachers in FL contexts to explain grammar rules and vocabulary to students. That situation often led to the development of declarative knowledge superseding the learners’ procedural knowledge—that is, their ability to use the TL to communicate. But we will see that, in recent years, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, because research has revealed there can be benefits in using the learners’ native language during lessons (see Cook, 2001; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009). A related problem can occur in L2 situations. In ESL classes in Canada or Australia, for example, there may be students from several different first languages and home cultures. In that situation, the diversity of first language backgrounds can motivate the learners to use the TL to communicate with one another; however, students may seek out others who speak their L1 to be their communication partners. In other contexts, one first language may predominate. For instance, I have observed an adult school class in central California with several Spanish L1 students, two Koreans, and a native speaker of Vietnamese. In this situation, one challenge was to make sure the Vietnamese speaker didn’t feel isolated. Likewise, it was important that the Spanish and Korean speakers experienced activities that would motivate them to speak the TL instead of resorting solely to communicating in their L1 with classmates who spoke that language.

1.6 Concluding Comments After introducing several key concepts, this chapter has described the structure of the rest of the book. We considered the differences between SL and FL learning contexts, and contrasted multilingualism and plurilingualism. We then discussed the components of language and the difference between declarative and procedural knowledge. We looked at transactional, interactional, and ludic uses of language, and considered spoken grammar. We briefly addressed two challenges: our learners’ opportunities for TL practice and the use of the first language in language lessons.

  Discussion Questions 1 Think about a situation when you have been learning a new language. Try to remember some of your earliest efforts to express your needs or your ideas in that language. What were some of the challenges you faced in terms of pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar? 2 Think about one particular challenge. How did you deal with it? What were the results? 3 As a (future) language teacher, what questions and concerns do you have at this point about teaching L2 speaking and listening? Make a list of your concerns about teaching listening and speaking. Share your ideas with a classmate or a colleague.

Introduction

15

4 Which of the issues described in the chapter summaries above seem most closely aligned to your own interests and concerns? Why? Which chapters seem less relevant to you personally? Why? 5 Was there ever a point in your childhood where you became aware of language differences? (These could have been uses of different languages across generations or among neighbors or at school or in other social contexts.) If so, what was the situation and what did you realize? What triggered your realization? 6 Do you live in a multilingual context? If so, what are the language varieties used in that context? If not, think of a multilingual context where you have worked or visited. 7 Do you consider yourself to be plurilingual? Why or why not? 8 Think of examples from your own experience as a language learner trying to use transactional, interactional, and ludic instances of the TL. Which is most challenging? Why?

 

Follow-up Tasks

1 Interview someone whose language learning history differs from yours. Is that person plurilingual? What does that person recall about his or her early awareness of language use? 2 Imagine you have seen a job announcement for a position teaching L2 speaking and listening in a context that would be desirable for you (i.e., the TL, the age and type of students, location of the program, etc.). Make a list of the strengths you currently have for that position. Then list the parts of your expertise that would need further development. 3 Imagine that you have just been offered a job teaching speaking and listening. Make a list of the questions you would want to ask the program administrator about the course(s) you would be teaching. 4 If you were to accept that job, what decisions would you have to make about how to structure the course? (Assume that no required textbook has been selected.) Identify two or three issues you would have to deal with initially. 5 Think about teaching a speaking and listening course for low-level students in an SL or FL context. What challenges do you think you would face as a teacher in these two different situations? Identify two or three such issues. 6 What if the course you would be teaching was intended for advanced students? Think about teaching such a course in a particular SL or FL context. Identify two or three challenges you think you would face as a teacher in these two different situations. Use the grid below to record your ideas in response to this task and the previous one. SL Context

FL Context

Lower Level Learners Advanced Learners 7 Imagine you have been asked to teach a thirty-minute demonstration lesson as part of a job interview. You can choose (A) the proficiency level of the students you would teach, and (B) whether to teach a speaking and/or listening lesson. What would you choose to teach and to what level of students? Why?

16

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  ●

●

Suggested Readings

If you are new to language teaching and do not have a background in linguistics, I suggest Nunan’s (2007) What Is This Thing Called Language? It is an excellent introduction to understanding the complexities of spoken language. To read the complete transcript from which the flasher excerpt above was taken, please see Allwright and Bailey (1991, pp. 56–59).

 

Technological Tools

At the end of every chapter in this book, I will refer you to the website of TIRF—The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. TIRF’s website offers links to resources and over 200 reference lists that will be helpful to teachers of many languages. Several professional associations offer helpful resources for language learners and teachers. These include: ●

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).

●

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

●

The International Association for Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL).

●

On the TIRF website you can find a list of professional organizations: On the Resources page, click on “Links.”

Chapter 2 Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

2.1 Introduction Over the centuries of the documented history of language teaching, there has been much debate about the most effective teaching methods. Some teacher education programs have espoused particular methods. Others have been more eclectic, basing their approaches on the assumption that teachers should be familiar with many different teaching methods so they could choose the ones that would best serve their own students’ needs. This chapter will provide a brief overview of a few important language teaching methods, illustrating how speaking and listening have been taught in some of the most widely used methods. It is not my intent here to provide an in-depth review of language teaching methods through the ages; other authors have done that more thoroughly than I could (see, e.g., Curtis, 2017; Richards & Rodgers, 2014).

Guiding Questions 1 What teaching methods have prioritized the development of L2 listening? 2 What teaching methods have prioritized L2 speaking? 3 Which methods have de-emphasized listening and/or speaking? Why?

Here I want to focus specifically on how L2 listening and speaking have been addressed in various teaching methods. The reason for this focus is that historical trends have a powerful impact on how we teach today. This result is due in part to large investments made in the development of teaching materials, teacher training, and language assessment tools, but it is also partly a result of the fact that we often teach as we have been taught. For these reasons, it is important that we understand our professional past, particularly in terms of how speaking and listening have been taught.

2.2 What We Know As our understanding of SL acquisition has developed, language teaching methodology and research about teaching methods have undergone a series of shifts in many parts of the world. Teachers and researchers gradually stopped searching for the best teaching method and began to realize the

18

Teaching Listening and Speaking

importance of teaching languages—including teaching speaking and listening—in ways that meet learners’ diverse needs. Our understanding of what language consists of also began to change, which influenced our view of language teaching. For example, linguistic research shifted away from describing and cataloguing phonological, morphological, and syntactic rules and began to focus more on how languages are used in particular contexts. Developments in sociolinguistic research gave us a broader view of what it means to be competent language users—an issue we will return to in Chapter 3, where we will explore language proficiency and communicative competence. Throughout the history of language teaching, instruction has focused on what was apparently needed at the time. As times have changed and various social issues and opportunities have waxed and waned, the importance of teaching speaking and listening has also changed. In broad brush strokes, some of the historically dominant teaching methods illustrate this pattern. I should note that different teaching methods have had a greater or lesser effect in different parts of the world. Some of the methods described here may be new to you, while others may seem very old-fashioned, although many are being used today. Brown and Lee (2015) observed that, in the century leading up to the 1980s, language teaching involved “a series of methods … that rose and declined in popularity. Some practitioners in this time period hoped to define the ultimate method, one that would be generalizable across widely varying audiences, contexts and languages” (p. 15; italics in the original). But changing needs and decades of research and practice have made us question whether or not one particular method can be used for all language learners in all contexts.

2.2.1 The Grammar-Translation Method Attitudes toward L2 speaking and listening have changed greatly over the years. Before international travel, education abroad, and cross-cultural business negotiations became so common, a main reason for studying a new language was to be able to read the literature of that language. In that context, the Grammar-Translation Method was a prevalent approach to FL teaching for many years. As the name suggests, grammar-translation lessons focused mainly on grammar, but they also emphasized learning vocabulary. Speaking and listening were seldom seen as essential. Lessons often started with a reading passage in the TL and a list of ten to twenty vocabulary items found in that text. Students were not necessarily expected to learn about the information contained in the reading passages. The primary function of those texts was to situate the vocabulary and the grammar points for the lesson. For this reason, the subject matter in such readings is referred to as carrier topics (i.e., those passages carried and contextualized the vocabulary and grammar points of the lesson). As educational exchanges and international business became more common, curricular and methodological foci shifted to emphasize teaching speaking and listening in L2 contexts. Furthermore, political upheaval and economic crises in many countries promoted intranational and international migration. This situation led to the urgent need for language teaching methods, curricula, and materials that would help immigrants and refugees be able to communicate in their

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

19

new living contexts. As noted by Richards and Rodgers (2014): “Large-scale movement of people through immigration as well as the internationalization of education since the 1950s also created a demand for new types of language programs” (p. 3). In these contexts, both L2 speaking and listening were very important.

2.2.2 The Reform Movement Indeed, one result of these social and political circumstances was the emergence of a much greater emphasis on teaching speaking and listening: “Doubts as to the capacity of this ‘Grammar-Translation’ approach to deliver what would now be called communicative competence triggered a reaction in the form of the Reform Movement” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 248). During the nineteenth century, “opposition to the Grammar-Translation Method gradually developed in several countries” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 7). This opposition came to be called the Reform Movement. “For the early reformers … the prioritizing of larger stretches of text, including dialogues, over the study of isolated sentences” became a key principle (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 248). In the era of the Reform Movement, as in first language acquisition, listening was taught first, and “linguists emphasized that speech, rather than the written word, was the primary form of language” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 10). There was also an emphasis on phonetics—“the scientific analysis and description of the sound systems of languages” (p. 9)—in both language teaching and teacher education. A major focus on conversation emerged, which was quite different from the procedures of the Grammar-Translation Method. Conversation practice was seen as helping students learn phrases and idioms (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).

2.2.3 The Direct Method The Direct Method emphasized both speaking and listening in the L2. In this method, all the classroom instruction took place in the TL and translation was not permitted (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). The teacher’s role was to “encourage direct and spontaneous use of the foreign language in the classroom” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 11). The Direct Method, as it was known in Europe, was considered to be a “natural method” (p. 12), because it supposedly mirrored the way children learn their mother tongue. Many researchers in Europe observed children acquiring their native languages through interaction. They then incorporated ideas about naturalistic learning into language teaching. Thornbury and Slade (2006) explain: “[It] was not until the second half of the 19th century that interactional approaches became systematized and widely applied. Such approaches were loosely grouped together in what came to be known as the ‘Direct Method’” (p. 249). In the United States, this method was often referred to as “the Berlitz Method,” because it was used in the Berlitz language schools. The Direct Method emphasized all four skills but “the purpose of language learning is communication [and] therefore students need to learn how to ask questions as well as answer them” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 29). Conversation was a regular part of lessons and correct pronunciation was emphasized, even at the beginner levels.

20

Teaching Listening and Speaking

2.2.4 The Audiolingual Method In the mid-1900s, after World War II, FL teaching and learning became more important in the United States than they had been previously. Driven by opportunities for international trade, travel, and education, and supported by the theories of behaviorist psychology, the Audiolingual Method emerged as an alternative to the Grammar-Translation Method. Like the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method focused on speech as primary. Indeed, compared to Grammar-Translation, the Audiolingual Method focused on speaking and listening with very little attention paid to L2 reading and writing. Even though audiolingualism emphasized spoken drills, it did not address “language beyond the sentence level. Conversation, if it existed at all in the audiolingual lesson, was simply a way of dressing up pattern practice drills” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 251). Pattern practice involved the teacher modeling and students repeating (both chorally and individually) basic phrases, clauses, and sentence structures. This drilling was essential because audiolingualism viewed language learning as habit formation. Basic grammar patterns would be repeated and, as the learners gained fluency and confidence with a particular syntactic structure, different lexical items would be inserted into the structure and the repetition would continue. Audiolingualism’s language focus was based on the findings of structuralist linguistics. As the name suggests, this field of linguistic study identified and analyzed the components of language. “Language was viewed as a system of structurally related elements for the encoding of meaning, the elements being phonemes, morphemes, words, structures, and sentence types” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 62). Thus, audiolingual lessons utilized drills that focused on the language components up to the level of the sentence. Discourse was not yet a pedagogical focus. In audiolingual lessons, “everyday speech is emphasized [and] the oral/aural skills receive most of the attention” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 435). But “real conversation—as opposed to scripted dialogues—was considered too risky for anything but the most advanced student, for whom the specially constituted ‘conversation class’ was (and still is) a common option” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 252). In those situations, teachers would introduce discussion topics, sometimes pre-teaching the vocabulary students were likely to need. One important focus during the audiolingual era was at the level of phonology. In fact, “great emphasis was placed on highly accurate pronunciation” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 6). Audiolingual teaching “emphasized oral/aural skills requiring learners to listen to native speaker models and imitate them as closely as possible” (p. 21). As a result, the language laboratory was an important part of many audiolingual programs. There students got intensive practice in repeating TL forms and listening to native speakers reciting TL dialogues.

2.2.5 Situational Language Teaching In the mid-1900s, British applied linguists developed a teaching method in which “new language points are introduced and practiced situationally” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 47). In this context, “situational came to mean any approach in which contextual factors were foregrounded and in which connected texts (almost always spoken) were the main means of presentation” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 252).

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

21

As in the Direct Method, new material was presented orally in Situational Language Teaching, but, unlike the Direct Method, the language points were also later covered in the written form (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 47). Situational Language Teaching differed from the earlier Direct Method, because lessons focused on language use in particular contexts. Learners were “expected to deduce the meaning of a particular situation in which it was presented” (pp. 48–49). As was the case with the Audiolingual Method, the underlying view of learning was basically habit formation, so it is not surprising that frequently used teaching techniques included “chorus repetition, dictation, drills, and controlled oral-based reading and writing tests” (p. 50). Taking English as an example, Situational Language Teaching was very practical, because it identified specific vocabulary and language structures speakers would need to use in particular contexts. Eventually, “situational English became associated with phrasebook-type English, consisting largely of transactional exchanges such as service encounters” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 253). Lessons involved speaking and listening in situations the learners were likely to encounter. This emphasis on situational language use had to do “with the commonsense recognition of the fact that, in the absence of translation, a situation provides useful contextual clues to help the learner induce the meaning of targeted language forms” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 253). In this regard, Situational Language Teaching was an early forerunner of Languages for Specific Purposes—a development we will consider in Chapter 14.

2.2.6 Alternative Methods After the Direct Method and Situational Language Teaching, a number of other language teaching methods emerged as alternatives to the Audiolingual Method and the Grammar-Translation Method. Brown and Lee (2015) have referred to this period of development as “the ‘Designer’ Methods Era” (p. 23). I will not provide a detailed explanation of these methods, because they are described well in many other sources. Instead, I will simply characterize them in terms of how they treated the teaching of speaking and listening.

2.2.6.1 Total Physical Response Total Physical Response (TPR), as the name suggests, connects physical activity with language learning. The underlying theory of learning is that memory traces become stronger if the skill or knowledge being learned is intense and repeated. In TPR, adult L2 learning is seen as paralleling the processes of child first language acquisition. The main proponent of this method was Asher, a professor of psychology (see Asher, 1966, 1969; Asher, Kusudo, & de la Torre, 1993). The use of TPR at beginner levels consists largely of commands to which the learners respond physically. Listening is predominant; learners are not expected to speak until they are ready. In TPR, “spoken language is emphasized over written language and understanding should precede TL production” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 110). In fact, the belief is that “once a foundation in listening comprehension has been established, speech evolves naturally and spontaneously” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 279). We will read about a typical TPR activity in section 2.3 below.

22

Teaching Listening and Speaking

2.2.6.2 The Natural Approach Another teaching method that emphasizes listening comprehension over speaking is called the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Input—the language that learners are exposed to—is central to this method, whether that input is delivered orally or in writing. The theory of language learning undergirding this method stems from Krashen’s (1982) view of language acquisition. Krashen and Terrell both saw language as communication—a broader view than the grammar and vocabulary emphases of the Audiolingual and Grammar-Translation methods. A central tenet of the Natural Approach is that listening comprehension should precede speaking and that learners should never be forced to speak if they don’t want to. The students’ emotional well-being is very important in this method. Anxiety is prevented to avoid raising the affective filter (Krashen, 1982)—a metaphor for emotional and personality factors that can inhibit language acquisition. The natural approach uses “comprehensible input and a classroom environment that provides comprehension of input, minimizes learner anxiety, and maximizes learner self-confidence” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 269). One part of the Natural Approach philosophy is that the language that learners hear—the input—can become intake if it passes through the affective filter. Intake is that portion of the input that learners can utilize in some way for their own TL development. We will return to this idea in Chapter 4, when we think about listening and speaking in the context of SL acquisition theory.

2.2.6.3 Community Language Learning Another method that emerged in the last quarter of the 1900s was called Community Language Learning, or Counselling Learning (CLL). In this method, language learning was seen as a result of a group effort in which students express in their L1 what they want to say in their L2. “Personalized talk is a defining characteristic of Community (or Counselling) Language Learning (CLL), for example, as developed by Curran (1976)” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 269). The philosophy was that learning should take place in a supportive, student-controlled context with the teacher acting as the counsellor. In CLL, “the content of the language lesson is the jointly constructed and audio-recorded conversation of the learners themselves” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 269). Richards and Rodgers (2014) describe the steps of a CLL lesson as follows: 1 The “learners sit in a circle with the teacher standing outside the circle” (p. 303). 2 A student whispers a message in his or her first language to the teacher. 3 The teacher says that student’s message aloud in the TL. 4 Then that student repeats the message in the TL as the teacher records the learner’s utterance. 5 The process is repeated with several students taking turns getting their utterances converted to the new language. 6 Then “the students reflect about their feelings” (p. 303). The result is a recording of several different students expressing their ideas in the TL. Thus, speaking and listening are central to this method. The assumption is that the learners would become a community and that they would eventually be able to carry on TL discussions without the teacher’s assistance.

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

23

2.2.6.4 Suggestopedia A completely different method is called Suggestopedia. Like TPR, the Natural Approach, and CLL, Suggestopedia places a high value on the learners’ emotional well-being and the value of TL input. Listening to and reading TL texts are frequently used activities. Speaking and listening are both important in Suggestopedia. A large part of the input to the learners involves listening to the teacher’s voice. Learners begin to use the TL first in reciting dialogues and then in producing their own ideas. Suggestopedia lessons often emphasize L1 and L2 vocabulary matching. The theory of learning that underpins this method involves getting the learners into a relaxed, receptive state through the use of music and a comfortable environment. Proponents claim that learners can memorize lengthy TL dialogues because of their relaxed and receptive emotional state. Quiet music is used in Suggestopedia lessons and its selection is important. Slow Baroque music (played at about sixty beats per minute) is supposed to help learners to be both relaxed and alert—conditions that are thought to promote learning. The language teacher’s role in Suggestopedia is that of an authority figure. Teaching with Suggestopedia requires special training. The teacher must manifest self-confidence and must read the lesson material aloud with the appropriate tone and rhythm, like a “dramatic reading” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 320). Error treatment is kept to a minimum. The course arrangements are important too: “Groups of learners are ideally socially homogenous, 12 in number and divided equally between men and women. Learners sit in a circle, which encourages face-to-face exchange and activity participation” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 323).

2.2.6.5 The Silent Way Yet another language teaching method is the Silent Way. It differs from the Natural Approach and TPR and other methods that prioritize listening in that it requires the learners to speak from the very beginning of their instruction. The Silent Way “is based on the premise that the teacher should be silent as much as possible in the classroom and the learner should be encouraged to produce as much language as possible” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 289). Accurate pronunciation including intonation and stress are also emphasized: “Since the sounds are basic to any language, pronunciation is worked on from the beginning. It is important that students acquire the melody of the language” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 63). The Silent Way makes use of Cuisenaire rods—brightly colored wooden manipulables (things that can be moved) that are of varying lengths. Colorful charts are also used for teaching the TL sound system from the very beginning of instruction. Both of these tools are used in lessons in which the students are responsible for listening carefully and reproducing sounds, words, and grammatical structures. Silent Way teaching differs from other methods in that the teacher doesn’t speak after the initial utterances. The students must figure out what to say and then say it. This practice seems to promote deep analytic processing, but it can also be anxiety-provoking for the learners.

2.2.7 Concerns about Language Teaching Methods As you can see, many different methods have been used to teach language over the past century. The proponents of each of these methods believed that theirs was the best, or at least that it was highly

24

Teaching Listening and Speaking

effective, for various reasons. But was there really a “best method?” This question is a matter of concern for many teachers and researchers. If we focus on just the issue of when to have beginner learners speak the TL, we can see that some methods require learners to speak at the outset, while others let students wait until they themselves feel ready to speak. So how can both of these approaches be viable? Near the turn of the millennium, an important series of publications posited that the concept of “method” should be discarded and that particular strategies for language learning provided a better way of structuring lessons than slavishly adhering to various methods. There was a move toward emphasizing principles and procedures, rather than teaching methods. Ten helpful macrostrategies were articulated that can be connected to the teaching of speaking and listening: (a) maximize learning opportunities, (b) facilitate negotiated interaction, (c) minimize perceptual mismatches, (d) activate intuitive heuristics, (e) foster language awareness, (f) contextualize linguistic input, (g) integrate language skills, (h) promote learner autonomy, (i) ensure social relevance, and (j) raise cultural consciousness. (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 69)

We will return to these principles at various points throughout this book. I have listed them here simply as a challenge to assumptions that we must follow a particular method in teaching L2 listening and speaking.

2.3 Practical Activities Various teaching methods appeal more to some learners than others. The Grammar-Translation Method, for instance, favors learners with analytic skills whose goals include reading in the TL; however, that method has proven inefficient in terms of developing L2 speaking and listening skills. So what practical activities can we glean from this historical overview? Here I will focus on just one activity type from TPR. TPR tasks can be used with any language and with learners of any age. They are also flexible enough to work in under-resourced contexts. For example, a typical TPR task involves giving each student a set of manipulables and having them follow instructions about what to do with those items. I have done TPR tasks with playing cards to teach such prepositions as below, under, above, beside, on top of, and underneath. Simple commands with put or place as the verbs are easily grasped by beginner level learners (e.g., “Put the three under the nine. Put the four on top of the nine”). I first made sure that the learners could count to ten and that they knew the numeric symbols for the number words with simple commands such as “Show me the two. Show me the nine.” At the beginning, I would also hold up the two, the nine, and so on, demonstrating with my set of cards as the students held up their cards. To start, each student has only one suit of cards (the spades, the diamonds, and so on). After they have followed the TPR commands individually, you can put students into pairs with red and black suits, the diamonds and the clubs. In the pair-work phase of the lesson, the activity takes on a gamelike quality. The teacher alternates between red and black cards in giving commands: “Put the black two on the red eight. Put the red six on the top of the black two,” and so on. The students must listen closely to hear whether a red card or a black card is needed, particularly as the speed of the commands increases.

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

25

TPR activities can be done with any sort of small, safe manipulables, including leaves, seashells, checkers, bits of paper, coins, or buttons. After the learners are accustomed to the process, they can take turns in giving commands. You can also increase the focus on new vocabulary by adding more adjectives to the commands and by including additional items. I once taught an absolute beginner Spanish lesson, which began with a red circle and a red square, so the initial vocabulary to the learner consisted of the two shapes and the color red. Then I added a red triangle. Then I gave a larger red circle, triangle, and square to each student and introduced the words for big and small. We practiced with commands for shape and size and then I added large and small triangles, squares, and circles in blue and yellow. Soon the students were giving commands to one another, using the Spanish vocabulary for three shapes, two sizes, and three colors. The transition from listening to speaking in this activity is usually effortless and fun. We will return to TPR and other task-based activities in Chapter 8. Here I just want to note that, for teachers of L2 speaking and listening, it can be useful to sample teaching techniques from various methods, since some methods are apparently more beneficial than others for certain learners.

2.4 Reflections I remember studying Latin and Spanish using the Grammar-Translation Method in secondary school. Daily lessons were based on chapters of the textbook. Every chapter had one or two TL reading passages with their accompanying lists of vocabulary items, which we students were supposed to memorize. There were weekly quizzes about the vocabulary and the grammar points that appeared in the readings. Even though Spanish is a widely used modern language, those language classes were very similar to math and history classes: reading the chapters, completing exercises, doing homework, correcting it in class, and taking tests. There was no focus on using the language to communicate with anyone about anything. Succeeding in these language classes consisted of doing the homework on time and getting good grades on tests. This emphasis wasn’t surprising in Latin, but what about in Spanish? In fact, there were two native speakers of Spanish in my first-year Spanish class in secondary school. To the best of my recollection, I don’t remember the teacher ever calling on them or having them serve as models for the rest of us. I took more Spanish courses in college. The Audiolingual Method was in vogue then. Lessons typically involved listening to the teacher and repeating what he or she said, in an endless stream of repetition and substitution drills. For instance, the teacher would say: “La pluma de mi tio está en la mesa,” and the students would dutifully repeat the sentence. This routine was repeated three or four times and then the teacher would cue us with a new noun (the substitution drill): “¡El lapiz!” and we would all recite: “El lapiz de mi tio está en la mesa.” Over and over, new nouns would be inserted, the point being to learn the structure: the [noun] of [a person] is [preposition] [a thing]. So really, although we were speaking in the TL, it didn’t matter whose pen or pencil was on the table. What we were learning was some vocabulary and some grammatical structures at the sentence level. As noted by Thornbury (2012):

26

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Until relatively recently, speaking was seldom taught as such, but instead was considered to be a by-product of the knowledge of the systems of the language. Speaking meant simply oral production— or, better, oral reproduction—of language to which the learner had been previously exposed, either through explicit instruction (as in the Grammar-Translation approach), or through modeling and drilling (as in audiolingualism). (p. 202; italics in the original)

In my view, Audiolingual Method lessons were just as tedious as Grammar-Translation lessons except for two things: They were usually conducted at a fast pace and the teacher would suddenly change from whole-group choral drilling to single-student responses to the drill cues. So we had to pay attention and be ready to respond whenever the teacher called on us. Language lessons in the audiolingual era were different from math or chemistry lessons, in the sense that we had to produce language. But I honestly don’t know if I could have used any of what we covered in those classes if I had needed to communicate in the TL context. A few years after taking those college Spanish courses, I went to Korea as the wife of a US soldier who was stationed there. He was on “unaccompanied status,” meaning there were no provisions for family members. I went to Korea on a tourist visa and lived in the village of Uijongbu, some miles from the army base where my husband lived and worked. To live in the village, I needed “survival Korean”—a basic ability to communicate and get my needs met in that language. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to take a short practical introductory Korean course that focused on speaking and understanding the language. What an amazing experience! Our teacher, Mr. Kim, had a master’s degree in linguistics and a great ability to teach and coach us. He organized his lessons around the basic structures and vocabulary we would need to live in the village: phrases like “How do you say …?” and “What is this thing?” Was he using situational language teaching? Perhaps, although the entire course was delivered orally; there was no textbook. For the first time in my life, I found language lessons useful and exciting. The course ran for six weeks with only two hours of instruction each week, but it was so relevant! On a daily basis, I could use the vocabulary and structures from our lessons with shopkeepers, taxi drivers, and—most importantly—my neighbors. For the ten months that I lived in Uijongbu, I was always able to get help when I needed it. I was a foreigner in my neighborhood, but I was also treated as an accepted visitor. My time there was limited but very precious to me—going to a local wedding, having holiday dinners with my neighbors, learning to make some Korean food. A few months after leaving Korea, I started graduate school in California. The MA program in teaching ESL in which I enrolled required that I take a language I’d never studied before, so I would understand the experience of beginner learners. I chose to study French because it seemed to be a widely useful language and had a great deal of historical influence on the development of English. Due to my husband’s military commitment, I arrived at my new graduate school program two weeks after the start of the term. You can imagine my horror when I entered the first-semester French classroom to find that the teacher spoke only French and the students were also speaking in French! Was this really first-semester French? I took a seat in the back row and tried to hide behind the other students. I felt like an academic ostrich, hiding my head in the sand, in the hope that the teacher wouldn’t notice me. But that strategy didn’t work. In a very short time, the teacher called on me directly. I had no idea what she was asking me. I tried to respond, but when I opened my mouth to speak my

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

27

non-existent French, Korean words fell out. The other students turned around and gaped at me, as if I’d been speaking in tongues. The French teacher used the Direct Method. She never wrote anything on the board. I had just spent nearly a year in Korea as a beginner language learner in an immersive context. What an amazing difference between learning Korean in the village and studying French in the classroom! Mr. Kim, my Korean teacher, didn’t write anything on the board either, so why was I so uncomfortable about that issue in the French class? For one thing, every conversation I had in Korea was highly contextualized. I often needed something, which was typically visible or at least available in the environment, for instance, when I was in the village market. So except with my closest neighbors who became my friends, most of the speech I engaged in was transactional in nature. Some basic syntactic structures, a great deal of high-frequency vocabulary, and use of the appropriate respectful address forms were essential for both transactional and interactional encounters. Second, my motivation to succeed in the French class was very different from my investment in learning basic survival Korean. Avoiding embarrassment in class, getting good grades on tests, and meeting my program requirements were important to me in the French class, of course. That kind of motivation led to reading the textbook, doing my homework, and memorizing vocabulary. Although the Direct Method used TL speaking and listening, it did not make me delve deeply into speaking French on a daily basis, since I was learning it in an FL context. It did not promote learning of the tempo, gestures, and intonation I needed in order to buy food, get directions to a place, or explain a problem to my landlady. Neither did using French in class give me the social and emotional rewards I experienced by communicating with my Korean neighbors in an SL context.

2.5 Challenges A problematic issue for teachers, regardless of what language they are teaching and method(s) they use, is whether, when, and how to respond when language learners make errors. Such responses have to be guided, in part, by teachers’ intuition and experience, but also by the theory underpinning the method. For example, the audiolingual “drill and kill” approach to language teaching was based on the premise that learning consisted of acquiring good habits. Skinnerian behaviorist psychology held that a stimulus should evoke a concomitant response. Lessons consisted of teachers providing oral stimuli and students listening and then responding orally. In the event that a student made an error—whether it was a problem in pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary—the teacher would immediately provide the correct form, which the learner(s) then had to repeat. Immediate error treatment was considered essential because the student who made the error might internalize a bad habit if the error wasn’t corrected. Likewise, that student’s classmates might think the erroneous form was correct if it was left untreated. But to say that teachers “correct” learners’ errors—especially in speaking—is a misnomer. Teachers may try to treat errors, but only the learners themselves can change their production of the forms they have internalized. Allwright and Bailey (1991) drew this analogy: [A]s we know from medicine, treatment and cure are not the same. Just because the teacher treats an error in some way, or just because the learner, in response to the treatment, manages immediately

28

Teaching Listening and Speaking

to get something right that was previously wrong, does not mean that a permanent cure has been effected … No matter how hard a teacher tries to correct errors, in the long run, only the learner can do the learning necessary to improve performance, regardless of how much treatment is provided. (p. 99)

Allwright and Bailey were not suggesting that students’ oral errors were pathological examples of illness or infirmity. Indeed, errors in learners’ speech may be evidence of their evolving language skills. It is likely that recognizing the errors we make is part of what propels us forward in trying to learn a new language. In methods where habit formation was not so central and where conversation was part of the lessons, “correction was recommended only where it could be done without inhibiting the flow; otherwise it would be withheld until a post-conversation stage at the end of the session. Explicit teaching of conversational strategies or skills was not considered necessary” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 252). We will return to this theme in Chapter 3, when we discuss communicative language teaching.

2.6 Concluding Comments This chapter has provided a brief overview of several different language teaching methods, in terms of how they treated L2 speaking and listening. Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) ten macrostrategies were briefly introduced as examples of guiding principles, which can be used to examine the value of using particular language teaching methods. The Reflections section provided my recollections of being taught with some of those methods. In the Challenges section, we considered issues related to error treatment, a topic that we will revisit in future chapters.

 

Discussion Questions

1 If you have studied a new language in school, what do you remember about how speaking and listening were taught in your classes? Were these experiences positive, negative, or neutral for you? 2 Which of the teaching methods discussed in this chapter, if any, have you experienced as a language learner? Which one(s) worked well for you? 3 If some of the teaching methods described in this chapter are unfamiliar to you, how well do you think you would have learned the TL with those methods? Why? 4 Thinking about the students you teach (or plan to teach), would any of the teaching methods described above be particularly appropriate for them? Why? Which methods might be inappropriate for your (future) students? Why? 5 Based on your own experience and your understanding of the ideas presented in this chapter, what do you think is the single most important development in the teaching of L2 listening and speaking in recent history?

Teaching Speaking and Listening through the Ages

29

6 Look back at the list of ten macrostrategies from Kumaravadivelu (2006). They have not yet been explained or discussed. Which ones make sense to you without further explanation? Which ones seem obscure?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Talk to someone older than you who studied some FL in school. Ask that person about his or her memories of classroom lessons. What activities did they involve? What were the general goals of the courses, relative to speaking and listening? Can those lessons be labelled as part of a particular teaching method? Try to determine how successful those lessons were for the person you interviewed. 2 Find a language textbook that was published at least ten years ago. Determine whether or not it has a focus on speaking and/or listening. Does the textbook seem to follow a particular teaching method? Articulate your evidence for determining whether or not the textbook follows a particular method. 3 Considering the various teaching methods described above, characterize each one as emphasizing or de-emphasizing L2 speaking. Do the same for L2 listening. Compare your analysis with that of a classmate or colleague. 4 Search the internet for a video of a lesson taught about your TL. Determine whether a particular teaching method guides the lesson.

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2014) provides an excellent review of the history of various language teaching methods. For a highly readable review of language teaching methods through the ages, please see Methods and Methodologies in Language Teaching (Curtis, 2017). Oller’s (1993) book, Methods That Work, provides a variety of chapters that explain the range of language teaching methods that arose in the 1970s. Richard-Amato’s (2010) book, Making It Happen: From Interactive to Participatory Language Teaching, briefly reviews a range of language teaching methods. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) review several different teaching methods. The structure of their chapters makes it easy to compare various methods. Brown and Lee’s (2015) book, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (4th ed.), includes a chapter called “A Century of Language Teaching.” Kumaravadivelu’s books (2003, 2006) elaborate on the ideas of using macrostrategies for teaching. Many of his ideas are directly relevant to teaching speaking and listening.

30

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  ●●

●

Technological Tools

Please visit the TIRF website to download free reference lists on methodology and language teaching methods. You can find video examples of lessons taught by various methods (e.g., the Audiolingual Method, Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia, Silent Way, etc.) on the internet. For example, go to YouTube and search for “Total Physical Response” in different languages taught to learners of various ages and proficiency levels.

Chapter 3 Language Proficiency and Communicative Competence

3.1 Introduction This chapter focuses on two overarching and related issues that are important in understanding our current views on the teaching of L2 speaking and listening: language proficiency and communicative competence. These concepts provide the foundation for the discussions in future chapters by reviewing key theories and research findings that have influenced developments in language teaching and assessment since the 1970s. We will first cover language proficiency and the theory of communicative competence as bases for teaching and learning activities. This chapter also introduces communication strategies and offers a brief discussion of communicative language teaching.

Guiding Questions 1 What is language proficiency? 2 What is communicative competence? What are its components? 3 What are the characteristics of communicative language teaching? 4 What are communication strategies? How can we help our students learn to use communication strategies in L2 contexts?

3.2 What We Know As discussed in the earlier chapters, there was a time when knowing a language meant that learners could read TL texts, had a reasonable mastery of useful vocabulary, knew the important grammar rules, and could succeed on tests that assessed TL knowledge, such as vocabulary or grammar points. Since the 1970s, however, our understanding of what knowing a language entails has expanded greatly. Two major developments in that understanding were the evolving concept of language proficiency and the theory of communicative competence. These developments had similar goals but somewhat different ways of achieving them.

32

Teaching Listening and Speaking

3.2.1 Language Proficiency Some of that expansion of our understanding is due to the increased importance of speaking and listening for language learners. In the latter half of the twentieth century, developments in communication and transportation made it easier for people to travel internationally—including for education. The emergence of study abroad programs gave students opportunities for immersion experiences, which helped them to develop their speaking and listening skills. For people who studied FLs at the advanced levels in college or university, often the focus was not on communication per se. Instead, moving on to other uses of the language was sometimes the goal. For example, in post-secondary education in the United States, students who majored in modern languages got through the basic courses and then frequently transitioned into literature courses and literary criticism. Others went on to become language teachers. At the same time, government language programs, such as that of the US Foreign Service Institute (FSI), were teaching intensive high-level language courses to people who would serve in the diplomatic corps. In that context, the language learners had to develop advanced language abilities for a wide range of communicative purposes that could have important consequences. To determine whether or not they had achieved high levels of proficiency, the FSI faculty developed a procedure for assessing the trainees’ speaking skills. It was called the FSI Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). The speech samples elicited in the OPI were rated on a scale of zero to five, with plus factors (i.e., 0+, 1+, 2+, 3+, and 4+) assigned to performances that nearly made it to the next level but couldn’t be sustained there by the test-takers.

3.2.1.1 The ILR Oral Proficiency Interview The FSI interview procedure and rating scale were eventually used by several US government agencies, so the name was changed to the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Oral Proficiency Interview. The ILR is a consortium of various organizations that comprise “representative government agencies that are concerned with second language teaching and testing” (Lowe, 1988, p. 1). Included in the ILR groups were the Defense Language Institute, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Peace Corps, and of course, the FSI. For students associated with those agencies, language learning is a major part of their work. As Lowe (1988) explained: “The typical student in the government setting is an adult learner in an immersion program who has both a utilitarian motive for studying a second language and the opportunity to apply classroom learning to daily job requirements in the targetlanguage country” (p. 2). In contrast, learners studying in secondary or post-secondary education contexts in the United States had much less exposure to the FL they were learning. Typically, weekly formal instruction might entail only three or four hours of “contact with the teacher in the classroom, plus a few hours of homework and possible time spent in the language laboratory. Also, instead of completing this study of a language in one year or less of intensive instruction, the academic learner often continues to study it for two or more years” (Lowe, 1988, p. 2). When university students were subsequently tested with the FSI OPI, they could easily get discouraged because they were often rated at the 2 or 2+ level, even after years of study. As Hinkel (2006) notes, unfortunately “FL or L2 proficiency cannot be developed when learning is limited to 1–3 hours of classroom instruction and input” (p. 114).

Proficiency and Communicative Competence

33

3.2.1.2 The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines In FL teaching in the United States, the proficiency movement developed, in part, through a partnership between academia and government language programs. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), in cooperation with the ILR group and Educational Testing Service (ETS), developed a new set of proficiency guidelines. At the time of writing, the 2012 ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines are the most recent. They describe “what individuals can do with language in terms of speaking, writing, listening, and reading in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context” (ACTFL, 2012a). In other words, these guidelines describe proficiency in each of the four skills. In the ACTFL system, which is widely used in the United States, assessed performances on each skill are designated as being at one of five proficiency levels: Distinguished, Superior, Advanced, Intermediate, and Novice. The ACTFL website states: “The major levels—Advanced, Intermediate, and Novice—are subdivided into High, Mid, and Low sublevels” (ACTFL, 2012a). Raters are trained to evaluate test-takers’ performance using these levels, which range from “that of the highly articulate, well-educated language user to a level of little or no functional ability” (ACTFL, 2012a). For some languages (including Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish) descriptors of performance levels are available on the ACTFL website and can be downloaded for free. Here, as an example, is the beginning of the descriptor for the Distinguished level of English-speaking proficiency: Speakers at the Distinguished level are able to use language skillfully, and with accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness. They are educated and articulate users of the language. They can reflect on a wide range of global issues and highly abstract concepts in a culturally appropriate manner. Distinguishedlevel speakers can use persuasive and hypothetical discourse for representational purposes, allowing them to advocate a point of view that is not necessarily their own. They can tailor language to a variety of audiences by adapting their speech and register in ways that are culturally authentic. (ACTFL, 2012c)

Likewise, the descriptor for the Distinguished level of English-listening proficiency begins with this information: [L]isteners can understand a wide variety of forms, styles, and registers of speech on highly specialized topics in language that is tailored to different audiences. Listeners at the Distinguished level can understand language such as that found in classical theater, art films, professional symposia, academic debates, public policy statements, literary readings, and most jokes and puns. They are able to comprehend implicit and inferred information, tone, and point of view, and can follow highly persuasive arguments. They are able to understand unpredictable turns of thought related to sophisticated topics. In addition, their listening ability is enhanced by a broad and deep understanding of cultural references and allusions. Listeners at the Distinguished level are able to appreciate the richness of the spoken language. (ACTFL, 2012b)

Thus, these two descriptions embody ACTFL’s (2012a) view of what it means to be a proficient speaker and listener when English is the TL. As these two texts illustrate, proficiency is sometimes described and assessed in terms of a particular skill, but we also talk about general proficiency. We will return to assessment concerns in Chapters 12, 13, and 14. Here I am simply offering these descriptors as one way of articulating and understanding the concept of language proficiency, focusing on speaking and listening.

34

Teaching Listening and Speaking

3.2.1.3 The CEFR In the early 1990s, representatives of government organizations in Europe decided to develop a way to describe learners’ abilities in various languages. The result was an important international way of thinking about proficiency—the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)—a set of standards that was developed by the Council of Europe. The CEFR consists of three bands: A, basic users; B, independent users; and C, proficient users. Every band contains two levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2), each of which has an accompanying descriptor. These levels are also labelled as Master (C2), Effective Operational Proficiency (C1), Vantage (B2), Threshold (B1), Waystage (A2), and Breakthrough (A1) (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 165). According to the website of Cambridge English (n.d.), the CEFR descriptors “can be used to set clear targets for achievements within language learning, to help define language proficiency levels and to interpret language qualifications.” The CEFR is widely accepted as a way of describing what learners can do with their TL skills. It is also used to describe levels of programs and units in textbooks. The CEFR “was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of foreign language proficiency” (Council of Europe, 2018a). For example, the CEFR descriptor for Level C2 (the highest level) says that an English language user: Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations. (Council of Europe, 2018b)

In effect, these three sentences are the CEFR way of describing a proficient listener and speaker of English, but the CEFR can be applied to any language. In addition to these overall statements, the CEFR provides descriptors for five factors that contribute to proficiency: range, accuracy, fluency, interaction, and coherence.

3.2.2 Communicative Competence The concept of communicative competence was initially attributed to the work of the sociolinguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes (see Hymes, 1972). The importance of the concept was summarized in this way by Duff (2014): To function in society, to be able to use language appropriately in social situations, speakers must know how to produce and interpret language for a wide range of purposes, as part of different types of activities in many settings, and with a variety of interlocutors. This ability to use language effectively, which native speakers often take for granted, is known as communicative competence. (p. 19; italics in the original)

Savignon, an applied linguist and a teacher of French, was strongly influenced by Hymes. She used the term communicative competence “to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers to make meaning, as distinguished from their ability to recite dialogues or to perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge” (Savignon, 2005, p. 636). Her definition

Proficiency and Communicative Competence

35

explicitly juxtaposes the focus on communicative competence with some of the language teaching methods that were dominant through the 1970s. The earliest model of communicative competence that really influenced language teaching and research consisted of three components (Canale & Swain, 1980). First, linguistic competence (also sometimes referred to as grammatical competence in earlier publications) covered the components of a language: the phonemes, morphemes, lexicon, and syntactic operations we considered in Chapter 1. Thus, linguistic competence entails the ability to use the language elements that were traditionally taught and tested. The second component, sociolinguistic competence, subsumes appropriacy and register (levels of formality). “Communicatively competent speakers not only produce utterances that their listeners understand, but they also evaluate the appropriateness of what they say in the light of reciprocity conditions; that is, who they are speaking to and under which kinds of circumstances” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 39). It is clear that sociolinguistic competence has added context as an important issue in teaching speaking and listening. Third, strategic competence was the ability to deploy strategies to prevent and/or repair communication breakdowns. Celce-Murcia (2014) described strategic competence as “knowledge of how to plan communication, compensate for linguistic deficits, elicit input, repair communication breakdowns, etc.” (p. 427). The realization that strategic competence is an important part of communicative competence led to considerable research on the use of communication strategies. A later addition to the communicative competence framework was discourse competence—“the ability to connect utterances to produce a coherent whole” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 51). Or, as CelceMurcia (2014) noted, discourse competence entails “knowledge of how to use linguistic resources and sociolinguistic competence to produce coherent discourse” (p. 426). Both of these comments emphasize procedural knowledge–actual language use. All four of these components of communicative competence have influenced language education in curriculum design, materials development, test development, and lesson planning. In future chapters, we will revisit the components of communicative competence as they relate to teaching L2 listening and speaking.

3.2.3 The Relationship of Language Proficiency and Communicative Competence What are the concepts of language proficiency and communicative competence? Both constructs represent successful L2 learning and use, but they differ in terms of how they articulate those abilities. The proficiency movement, as exemplified by the ACTFL and CEFR scales, focuses on describing optimal performance and the possible phases leading up to that level of achievement. Such systems often use can-do statements about specific language behaviors. Those statements illustrate learners’ abilities at different stages of TL development. In contrast, the components of communicative competence constitute a theory about the major areas to consider in describing language ability, creating syllabi and lessons, and assessing learners’ accomplishments. Thus, a main distinction between the two systems is that the proficiency movement articulates particular behaviors while theories of communicative competence deal with larger issues; however, both constructs provide us with useful frameworks for teaching L2 speaking and listening.

36

Teaching Listening and Speaking

3.2.4 Communicative Language Teaching These ideas about the components of communicative competence had a profound effect on both language teaching and the assessment of language development, which had previously emphasized linguistic competence. One lasting result was the emergence and eventually the widespread use of communicative language teaching (CLT). This teaching method employs a variety of procedures to promote the development of L2 speaking and listening. The development of CLT in language education was influenced by many international factors. According to Thornbury and Slade (2006), who were influenced by the work of Widdowson (1978), three developments led to the rise of CLT: The first was functionalism—the realization that language is not simply to represent the world, but that it functions to do things in the world. The second was a shift in the focus of language analysis to the level of discourse and text, and hence the development of both discourse and genre analysis. And the third was the emergence of the notion of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), the view that being able to do things with the language requires more than a knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language (or usage) but also the ability to know how to put this knowledge to communicative use. (p. 256; italics in the original)

Thornbury and Slade were particularly interested in the description and analysis of L2 conversation. They note that the developments listed above contributed to both the theory underlying CLT and to our views on teaching conversation, which had been largely ignored in many other teaching methods. There are some key contrasts between teaching for TL communication and the various methods discussed in Chapter 2. For one thing, “CLT extends beyond the merely grammatical elements of communication into the social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language. It is an approach that encourages ‘real-life’ communication in the classroom” (Brown & Lee, 2015, p. 31). Another key difference is that CLT focuses on “linguistic fluency and not just the accuracy that once consumed its methodological predecessors” (p. 31). We will return to the concept of fluency in Chapter 9. There are seven different procedures that are regularly used in CLT (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). A commonly used procedure is the information gap—the situation in which one person has information that the other lacks and together they must use the TL to convey and receive that information. The related term jigsaw activity is taken from the image of a jigsaw puzzle, in which the pieces must fit precisely together. It is also called the two-way information gap. In this case, two or more people have different sets of complementary information. The interlocutors must use the TL to share that information. Two other activity types are also built on using TL information. In information gathering activities, learners access information in the TL through interviews or surveys. In doing so, they interact with other speakers of the TL or with material written in the TL. In contrast, information transfer activities involve receiving information in one mode and then conveying that information with a change of modality. For instance, information in a chart or table can be conveyed orally, a recorded telephone message can be taken down in writing, or a written text can be summarized by speaking. In a sense, responding

Proficiency and Communicative Competence

37

to commands in TPR activities is a kind of information transfer: Learners receive the information (the commands) aurally and convey their understanding of that information physically. In opinion-sharing activities, the information to be communicated comprise the learners’ views. The topic for discussion may be identified by the teacher or chosen by the students. Reasoning gap activities involve working with information that is provided and using the TL to solve a problem or puzzle. Finally, Richards and Rodgers (2014) include role plays in this list of CLT activities, because role plays begin with assigned roles and situations for students to resolve using the TL. We will return to the use of role plays for language practice in Chapter 7 and for assessment in Chapter 13.

3.2.5 Communication Strategies As noted above, part of strategic competence is the ability to prevent communication breakdowns and to fix them when they do occur. What are communication strategies? An early and influential definition is from Tarone (1977), one of the first to conduct research on this topic: “Conscious communication strategies are used by an individual to overcome the crisis which occurs when language structures are inadequate to convey the individual’s thought” (p. 195). Such breakdowns may occur due to limitations in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and/or discourse abilities. The question arose as to whether learners’ use of such strategies was intentional or operated out of awareness, as reflected in this definition by Færch and Kasper (1983): communication strategies are “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (p. 36). A more recent definition simply states that communication strategies are “various verbal and non-verbal means of dealing with difficulties and break-downs that occur in everyday communication” (Dörnyei, 1995, p. 55). Regardless of how we define the term, communication strategies have been an important research topic since the late 1970s. This focus was a practical realization of strategic competence, the third component of Canale and Swain’s (1980) framework. For example, research by Tarone (1981, 1984) and her colleagues began to influence our understanding of how learners manage to engage in and continue interactions before they have gained general mastery of their TL. In 1995, Dörnyei published an influential paper in which he described three broad categories of communication strategies: (1) avoidance or reduction strategies; (2) achievement or compensatory strategies; and (3) stalling or time-gaining strategies. We will consider each in turn, because the categorizations can be helpful for L2 teaching and learning. First, there are times when a conversation or a specific topic simply becomes too difficult to continue in a new language. At those points, learners may choose to abandon the message— either by discontinuing the conversation or changing the topic. In other cases, learners may avoid certain risky topics entirely. These two strategies of avoidance and reduction help learners minimize miscommunication and possible embarrassment. Second, in using what are called achievement or compensatory strategies, learners try to continue a conversation “by manipulating available language, thus compensating somehow for their linguistic deficiencies” (Dörnyei, 1995, p. 57). There are nine strategies in this important category, all of which have applications in teaching L2 listening and speaking:

38

Teaching Listening and Speaking

1 Circumlocution, as the name suggests, involves going around a sticking point or gap in the learner’s knowledge and/or skill in order to convey an idea or need. For example, when I didn’t know how to ask for a hairdryer in a hotel in Mexico, I asked in Spanish for “the thing that makes your hair hot” (secadora). 2 Approximation consists of “using an alternative term which expresses the meaning of the target lexical item as closely as possible” (Dörnyei, 1995, p. 58). Examples include saying car instead of convertible, sedan, minivan, etc. 3 Use of all-purpose words, such as stuff or thing is a strategy that can move a conversation forward. In my example of circumlocution above, saying thing was using an all-purpose word. 4 Word coinage occurs when the speaker creates a new term to make up for a lexical gap. For instance, a group of Japanese learners studying English in California were cooking noodles at a class party at their teacher’s home. To do so, they needed a strainer, but since they didn’t know that word, they asked her for a “net bowl.” 5 Use of non-linguistic means includes gesturing or drawing, pointing, and making noises or facial expressions. These non-linguistic means can be used both to interpret and to convey meaning. 6 Literal translation is putting an L1 phrase, word, or grammatical structure into the TL. One example is the Spanish expression “se hizo humo”—meaning that someone disappeared. The literal translation is that a person became smoke, but to say in English that someone turned into smoke may not communicate the idea that the speaker doesn’t know where that missing person is. 7 Foreignizing is the use of a mother-tongue word put into the phonological and/or morphological shape of a TL word. For example, my brother-in-law was with two friends in a restaurant in a Mexican border city. None of them spoke Spanish, but he heard the word menudos and assumed it meant menus, so he asked the server for “tres menudos.” You can imagine his surprise when three bowls of tripe soup were delivered to the table. 8 Code-switching involves changing from the TL to the first language (or another language) to get the point across, and/or to build solidarity with our interlocutors. 9 Appeal for assistance involves directly asking for help (“How do you say …?” or “What is the meaning of …?”), either in the TL or in the speaker’s first language (if the interlocutors understand it). All of these strategies can be used in speaking and listening contexts to help language learners get what they need and to continue TL conversations. Finally, items in the third category, stalling or time-gaining strategies, “are not actually used to compensate for any linguistic deficiencies, but rather to gain time and keep the communication channel open at times of difficulty” (Dörnyei, 1995, p. 57). In this classification, there is one stalling or timegaining strategy: the use of fillers or hesitation devices. There can be filled pauses, such as “uhm” or “er,” or lexical items or phrases, such as “you know” or “well.” We should be clear that communication strategies may or may not function as learning strategies. That is, using communication strategies may help learners to avoid or get past a rough patch in conversations without actually helping them to develop their TL pronunciation, vocabulary, or grammar, or understanding of L2 discourse. But communication strategies can be beneficial in a number of ways.

Proficiency and Communicative Competence

39

First, their use may help language learners get their needs met. (I did get the hairdryer in the hotel in Mexico.) Communication strategies may also help learners continue conversations, thereby increasing their access to TL input. To the extent that the communication does succeed, the speakers may also gain confidence in using the L2. And we should acknowledge that sometimes the use of communication strategies can support L2 learning, as my example about the hairdryer (secadora) illustrates.

3.3 Practical Activities As we saw in Chapter 2, much language education historically has emphasized teaching about language. For example, learners were expected to learn the grammar rules and then apply them in speaking and writing the TL. The mastery of new vocabulary—often in the form of a word list—was paramount. Language lessons focused on the components of the TL and/or their applications in one or more of the four skills. After the focus in language teaching expanded to include the various components of communicative competence, teachers had to be able to work with much broader goals than teaching about the components of the TL. Of necessity, the professional requirements for teachers to know about the TL were vastly enlarged to include both teachers and their students being able to use the language. As noted in Chapter 1, these two foci can be characterized as declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, respectively. For example, as noted above, prior to the focus on communicative competence, a language lesson might include a reading passage that exemplified particular grammatical structures and introduced vocabulary items. But when sociolinguistic competence was recognized as an important component, teachers needed to include register and social contexts in their language lessons as well. Given the importance of strategic competence, we teachers should help our students develop that part of their communicative competence. Dörnyei (1995) describes six procedures for teaching communication strategies: 1.  raising learner awareness about the nature and communicative potential of communication strategies; 2.  encouraging students to be willing to take risks and use communication strategies; 3.  providing L2 models of the use of certain communication strategies; 4.  highlighting cross-cultural differences in communication strategy use; 5.  teaching communication strategies directly; and 6.  providing opportunities for practice in strategy use. (pp. 63–64)

Please keep these procedures in mind as you read the following account of an EFL lesson on communication strategies.

3.4 Reflections Have you ever taught a class where the lesson went perfectly and you were sure your students had learned something useful and that they’d really enjoyed themselves in the process? It doesn’t happen to me very often, but I’d like to tell you about the best EFL lesson I ever taught. During a sabbatical year

40

Teaching Listening and Speaking

in Hong Kong, I taught a speaking and listening course that emphasized language learning strategies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. My students were intermediate or lower-intermediate users of EFL. They were mostly first-year college students whose secondary school language education had emphasized English grammar, vocabulary, and reading. For them, actually speaking English (even in English class) was a novel and rather challenging experience. My role was helping to build their confidence and willingness to communicate while also teaching them English. In one unit, I was trying to encourage my students to use communication strategies. We had gone over the concept and I think they had an intellectual, abstract understanding of what communication strategies are, but I didn’t see much evidence that they were trying to use them. I wanted to set up a situation where the students could experience the value of communication strategies and would actually use them. In preparing my lesson plan, I thought about times when I had to communicate in a language I hadn’t mastered. My memories revealed that gaps often arose in contexts where I needed something or wanted to get something done. So I tried to create a situation where my Hong Kong students had to use English to get something, but I also wanted to locate their artificial need for that thing in the safe environment of our classroom. I decided to set up a role-play context in which a student’s grandmother had sent him to the store to buy something for her. But when the student arrived at the shop, instead of the familiar Cantonese-speaking salesperson, he found a monolingual English speaker (me) serving the customers. To get what his grandmother wanted, the student had to communicate with me in English. The trick to making this activity work was to guide the learners’ thinking in such a way that they would have to use communication strategies to get their point across. In order to do that, I gathered lots of stuff—just odds and ends really—from my flat. That collection included a staple remover, tweezers, paperclips, a potato peeler, a straw, an empty plastic cup, a can of soda, paper napkins, a cork from a wine bottle, and—most importantly—two flat, round coasters made of cork. I put one of these coasters into an opaque bag. All the other items were hidden behind a small podium on the teacher’s table. The student I selected to help me demonstrate the role play was a young man named Henry. He was a cheerful student and one I would characterize as being willing to try to speak English. I explained the task to the whole class, and asked Henry to come to the front of the room, where I gave him a bag. I showed only Henry what was in his bag—a flat, round coaster, about three inches in diameter, made of cork. To start the role play, Henry laughed and said he needed to buy something for drinking. In response, I pulled out the canned soft drink from behind the podium. Henry laughed again and said it was for having a drink but not the thing to drink, so I pulled out the plastic cup. Then Henry said it went under the drink so there’d be no water on the table (gesturing with one hand under the other), so I showed him a paper napkin. He laughed and asked his classmates something in Cantonese. They were laughing too and several of them shouted, “Cork! Cork!” Then Henry told me that the thing he needed was made of cork, so of course I produced the cork from the wine bottle, which triggered more uproarious laughter from the class. Finally, Henry said: Oh, okay, no (laughing). It’s not this thing. It’s, uhm, okay—it’s, uhm, for under the drink so no water on the table. But is flat. Not paper. Is cork. Is flat cork for under, eh, the drink. Is like this (making a round shape about three inches in diameter with the thumb and forefingers of both hands). (Bailey, 2005, p. 112)

Proficiency and Communicative Competence

41

This utterance was a rather lengthy turn for Henry. Please notice the number of communication strategies he used to get his point across. The conversation ended with the following exchange: T: Oh! I understand! You want to buy coasters! (pulling out a round cork coaster from the bag of hidden items) S: (Obviously relieved and pleased) Yes! Yes! This is the thing! (His classmates laugh and applaud his effort.) What is the name? T: What is it called? Coaster. We call these coasters. S: How to spell it please? T: How is it spelled? C-O-A-S-T-E-R-S. S: Can you write it please? (gesturing to the whiteboard) T: (Gives him the whiteboard marker) I’ll spell it and you write it for the class, okay? C-O-A-S-T-E-R-S. S: Oh, okay, okay. Coasters. (He prints the word on the whiteboard as the teacher spells it aloud.) Coasters (holding up the coaster triumphantly to show his classmates). This is a coaster! (announced dramatically). (Bailey, 2005, p. 113) Henry’s joyful success in obtaining this obscure item from a monolingual English speaker was palpable. I am quite sure that he was proud of himself and that his classmates saw how the communication strategies we had studied actually could be used to accomplish goals. In the next part of the lesson the learners worked in pairs to try to explain what they needed to buy. The props were items from my office and my apartment for which the students would know the function but were unlikely to know the English name: the items listed above, but also nail clippers, Band-Aids, thumbtacks, a corkscrew, and a can opener. I distributed one item to each pair of students, but each object was concealed in an opaque bag. One person would describe the item to the partner, but the partner could not see it. The listening partner tried to guess what the item was, while the speaking partner tried to convey what he or she needed. For this activity, neither partner could resort to Cantonese until the very end of the interaction. If neither person knew the name of the object in English, they could say the name in Cantonese and then check their understanding with me. For example, person A had the bag with the desired object. He had to convey what he wanted to buy through the use of communication strategies in the TL. Person B, in the role of the shopkeeper, had to determine what person A wanted to buy. When they thought they had determined what that object was, they could use Cantonese to check if neither of them knew the English name of the object. I had told the students that when the speaker (the buyer) successfully communicated to the shopkeeper (the listener) what he or she needed (by way of communication strategies in the TL), they should return the desired object, hidden in its opaque bag, to the center of the room, and choose another bag, containing a different object. This time the person who had been the listener (the shopkeeper) the first time would be the speaker (the customer). When I distributed the bags to the students, something amazing happened. The lesson took on a life of its own. I have to admit the activity got a little out of hand. Or, depending on how you look at it, the activity was wildly successful. The pairs of students switched roles (shopkeeper or customer) several

42

Teaching Listening and Speaking

times, while I had only expected the students to take one turn in each role. But as they became more successful (and louder) at using communication strategies, the pace of discourse increased and the pairs engaged in three or four exchanges about different objects. I listened as they carried out these fast-paced and excited interactions. Some turns were taken in Cantonese, but as far as I could tell from the English responses, those turns seemed to be variations on “How do you say …” followed by the Cantonese word. I finished that lesson exhausted and elated. My students had actively used communication strategies in a speaking and listening task. They had spoken English. They had laughed. They left the classroom happy—even exhilarated. Only weeks before, they had hesitated or even declined to speak English in response to my questions. What had changed was (1) the use of communication strategies; and (2) the game-like nature of the task. Let’s be clear, I readily admit that Henry and his classmates may never need to ask for coasters in English. But learning that vocabulary item was not the point of the lesson. The goals were, first, for the students to witness an interaction that required the use of several communication strategies and, second, for them to practice those strategies in pair work. My hope was that this lesson would both encourage these learners to use communication strategies and increase their confidence about doing so.

3.5 Challenges One challenge related specifically to teaching students to communicate in the TL is that the learners may resist that focus. Savignon (2005) points out that: [L]earners differ markedly in their reactions to learning a language for communication. Some may welcome apprenticeship in a new language and view it as an opportunity. For others, however, the need to find new ways of self-expression may be accompanied by feelings of alienation and estrangement. (p. 638)

For language learners accustomed to memorizing vocabulary words and doing grammar exercises, lessons based on the types of activities described in this chapter can be very unsettling. Some view such activities as games and therefore not appropriate in language lessons. Others may be inhibited about having to communicate in the TL without the benefit of scripted dialogues. Another interesting challenge in teaching for communication is the pressure it can put on language teachers—especially those working in FL contexts. They may feel that their learners lack both the motivation and the opportunity to use the TL for communicative goals outside the classroom. Their students may also face requirements of passing language tests that don’t emphasize communication abilities. As a result, teaching for communication may (justifiably) feel like an uphill battle. Another challenge is that teachers themselves may not be totally confident about their own communicative competence (their procedural knowledge with the TL). In my experience, this concern is particularly prevalent among teachers who have not lived, worked, or travelled extensively in countries where people speak the TL they teach.

Proficiency and Communicative Competence

43

3.6 Concluding Comments This chapter introduced the concepts of language proficiency. We saw that the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the CEFR are two ways of describing language proficiency. The other important framework introduced here is the theory of communicative competence and its components: linguistic, sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse competence. This framework influenced the development of CLT. It also promoted research on the use of communication strategies in L2 interactions. These two frameworks and the information about CLT will lead us directly into the topics of subsequent chapters.

  Discussion Questions 1 Please review the descriptions of the ACTFL proficiency levels. Which level(s) best describes your own speaking and/or listening proficiency in a language other than your native language? What is your evidence for your choice? 2 Think of a language you have learned that is not your native language. Which CEFR description best characterizes your proficiency level in that language? 3 Consider the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the CEFR descriptors. Which level descriptors in those two systems best characterize the proficiency of the students you teach (or hope to teach)? 4 When you had not yet achieved advanced level proficiency in a language you were learning, which of the components of communicative competence was the most challenging for you? Think of an example to share with a classmate or colleague. 5 Have you ever been in a situation as a language learner where you needed to use one or more of the communication strategies described above, either to prevent or to repair a communication breakdown? If so, what was the context? What did you do? What was the outcome?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Examine a textbook for learners of your TL about listening and/or speaking. Were the components of communicative competence considered by the author(s) in writing the book? 2 In the same textbook, is there a focus on proficiency? What evidence is there that proficiency issues guided the author(s) of this textbook? Share your ideas with a colleague or a classmate. 3 Look back to the story about Henry trying to buy coasters. Which of the communication strategies described earlier in the chapter did Henry use? Identify the particular strategies that emerge in the lines of the story. 4 Which of Dörnyei’s six procedures for teaching language learners to use communication strategies were employed in the role play with Henry and the subsequent pair work? 5 If any of Dörnyei’s six procedures were not included, think of ways they could be added to a lesson plan. Share your ideas with a classmate or colleague.

44

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●●

To read the entire transcript of Henry’s participation in the activity, please see Bailey (2005), pages 111–113. You can access a copy of the original Canale and Swain article about communicative competence by searching for Canale & Swain (1980) in Google Scholar. For an excellent overview of research on communication strategies, please see Dörnyei and Scott (1997).

  ●● ●●

●●

Technological Tools

To learn more about the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, you can search the ACTFL website. To learn more about the CEFR, search the internet for CEFR Cambridge English. Scroll down to the bottom of the home page and click on the link to the podcast by Dr. Nick Saville. On that same page you will also find podcasts by other scholars at Cambridge English about the CEFR. For reference lists on CLT, communication strategies, code-switching, language proficiency, study abroad research, and teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about language teaching please visit the TIRF website.

Chapter 4 Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Speaking and Listening

4.1 Introduction Second language acquisition (SLA) research is a huge field in our profession. Summarizing even the key publications of the past few decades would be far beyond the scope of this book. Instead, this chapter will introduce a few essential concepts from SLA research and theory that are directly related to the teaching and learning of L2 speaking and listening. There are many useful ideas from SLA research and theory that can inform our teaching, so I hope the issues discussed here will encourage you to explore further. We will begin with the constructs of input, intake, output, interaction, and negotiation for meaning from the interactionist view of SLA. We will also examine the concepts of scaffolding, affordances, and the zone of proximal development as part of a brief introduction to sociocultural theory as it relates to L2 speaking and listening skills. We will then explore some teaching activities for promoting language acquisition in L2 listening and speaking contexts.

Guiding Questions 1 What is the input hypothesis? What is intake? 2 What is the role of comprehensible input in SLA? How does negotiation for meaning in L2 conversations lead to comprehensible input? 3 What is output? What is the output hypothesis? 4 What is focus on form? How does it relate to developing L2 speaking and listening? 5 What are affordances and scaffolding? 6 What is the zone of proximal development? 7 How do the sociocultural concepts of affordances, the zone of proximal development, and scaffolding relate to teaching speaking and listening in L2 contexts?

46

Teaching Listening and Speaking

4.2 What We Know In the 1970s, linguistic research and language teaching began to find some common ground in what came to be known as SLA research. Early SLA studies were influenced by both the topics and the methods of first language acquisition research. Initially, the main focus of SLA research was on the acquisition of morphemes, vocabulary, and syntactic structures (the elements of linguistic competence). In the 1980s, two key foci emerged that have had a lasting impact on teaching both listening and speaking: the roles of input and interaction in SLA. In terms of our focus on listening and speaking, the former emphasized the importance of listening and the latter emphasized speaking and listening together. SLA research has given us a great deal of useful information that we teachers can use in planning and carrying out speaking and listening lessons. Here are some of those key concepts from SLA research: 1 Input consists of the TL samples that learners hear or read. In this book, since we are focusing on speaking and listening, I will emphasize spoken input addressed directly to the learners, or other kinds of oral input learners hear (e.g., on television, in songs, in movies, in podcasts, in radio and television programs, etc.). 2 Intake is that portion of the input that learners attend to and incorporate into their evolving L2 development. The term is also used as a verb, referring to the “process of assimilating linguistic material; it refers to the mental activity that mediates input and grammar” (Gass, 1997, p. 5). 3 Output is language the learners produce, either in speech or in writing. The output hypothesis states that “the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning” (Swain, 2005, p. 471). 4 Interaction in SLA terms involves learners speaking in and listening to the TL together in the same speech event (e.g., in a conversation or an interview). The concepts above have been very important in two major schools of thought in SLA research: the input hypothesis and the interaction hypothesis.

4.2.1 The Input Hypothesis One early influential view was Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis. In brief, Krashen believed that comprehensible input was a necessary and sufficient condition to cause SLA. He thought that if learners were exposed to spoken and written texts that they could understand, they would develop their L2 abilities. The TL samples learners encounter, whether in speech or in writing, constitute the input. According to Rost (2016), the input hypothesis had two clear implications for teaching. The first is that “speaking is the result of acquisition and not its cause” (p. 135). That is, the input students receive through listening is what potentially becomes intake and fuels their ability to produce the TL orally. Second, an assumption underlying the input hypothesis is that “if input is understood and there’s enough of it, the necessary grammar the learner needs to learn is automatically provided” (p. 135). In other words, what learners hear and understand enables them to acquire and produce grammatical structures, so listening is a very important process in language acquisition.

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

47

Rost (2016) also notes that the input hypothesis offers some key principles for teaching. The first is that, because “learners need to understand” (p. 135), lessons should consist of language at the “i + 1 level”—where the lower-case letter “i” represents the students’ current level of language development. The “+1” notation indicates that the input should be slightly above the learners’ current proficiency level. According to this view, part of our responsibility as language teachers is to pitch our speech (and other sources of input, such as audio recordings) at the right level for the students so the input is neither too easy nor too difficult. It should be a bit above the learners’ current proficiency level. In short, the input hypothesis posits that “if learners are at stage ‘i’ in their language development, they can acquire i+1 if they understand input containing i+1” (Swain, 2005, p. 472). In addition, “speaking ability will tend to emerge naturally as a result of work with authentic listening input” (Rost, 2016, p. 136). Rost argues that authentic TL input is especially important in FL contexts, “so that students’ emergent speaking can be modeled on this input” (p. 136). We will return to the issue of authentic input in Chapter 5.

4.2.2 The Interaction Hypothesis The interaction hypothesis is another important perspective in SLA research and theory that has serious implications for us as language teachers. It both arose from and contested the input hypothesis. This view holds that negotiation for meaning occurs during interaction as language learners try to understand and make themselves understood. It is through the process of interaction that input is fine-tuned and made comprehensible to learners. In a very helpful review of related research, Pica (2005) wrote: [W]hen input was no longer comprehensible during interaction between L2 learners and interlocutors, they would modify the flow of the interaction and repeat, rephrase, or request help with the input until comprehension was achieved. It was claimed that the modified input directed toward the learners could assist their comprehension as well as their L2 learning. (pp. 273–274)

This process was referred to as the negotiation for meaning. Early SLA research on interaction revealed three conversational moves that are involved in the negotiation for meaning (see, e.g., Long, 1981, 1983). As illustrated below, these moves are usually referred to as confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests. Gass (1997) offers these examples:

Confirmation check:

Listener to speaker

Comprehension check:

Speaker to listener

Clarification request:

Listener to speaker

→

“Is this what you mean?”

→

“Do you understand?” “What?” or “Huh?”

→

First, in confirmation checks, the listener is fairly sure of having understood the message and tries to affirm that the speaker’s message has been understood. Second, in comprehension checks, the speaker checks to see if the listener understands what has been said. Third, in a situation where the listener is uncertain of the speaker’s intended meaning, a clarification request could be used. Each of these moves from one of the interlocuters invites a follow-up response from the other. In the subsequent exchanges, the interlocutors negotiate for meaning. In that process, the learner gradually comes to understand and to be understood in the TL interaction.

48

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Already you can see that there are big differences for us as teachers if we plan our speaking and listening lessons based on the input hypothesis or the interaction hypothesis. An input-oriented lesson would involve carefully selecting and presenting spoken texts or audio-recordings of texts slightly above the students’ current level. An interactionist-oriented lesson would entail creating opportunities for communicating, during which the learners would negotiate for meaning, regardless of their current proficiency levels. Interaction is important in SLA because it is through the experience of trying to communicate that learners negotiate for meaning, whether they are sharing information, getting information, or both. In turn, their interlocutors must fine-tune their speech to be understood by the learners. The interlocutors can be native or proficient TL speakers or other learners. It is through negotiating for meaning that L2 users clarify both understanding (as listeners) and their intended meaning (as speakers). Thus, as Thornbury and Slade (2006) note: “Interactionist theory argues that language learning may emerge out of conversation rather than simply being a precondition for conversation” (p. 207). It is during interaction that speaking and listening work most closely together. In fact, a substantial amount of SLA research “is based on data collected from L2 learners speaking to each other or to native speakers to ascertain the role of input, interaction, and corrective feedback in their acquisition of the L2” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 106). Rost (2016) provides a summary of some key features of the interactionist view. Noticing the gap occurs when a learner tries “to say something and the listener doesn’t understand” (p. 136). At this point, the learner will often realize that he is not conveying the point he wishes to make, hence he notices the gap between what he wants to say and what he has said. In addition, language acquisition is driven by learners’ interaction for three reasons. First, the learner gets comprehensible input as the interlocutor changes the interaction. Second, negative feedback makes learners aware of their errors. Third, “interaction provides opportunities for ‘pushed output’ in social contexts” (p. 136). These opportunities occur when language learners negotiate for meaning as they interact in the L2. There are three relevant principles for teaching that stem from the interaction hypothesis. First, we must always remember that the “learners are the ones doing the learning” (Rost, 2016, p. 137). Second, from this perspective, “learning requires negotiation for meaning” (p. 137), because it is through negotiation for meaning that language learners get input that is comprehensible for them personally. Third, “feedback is necessary for learning” (p. 137).

4.2.3 The Output Hypothesis It is clear that input plays an important role in SLA; however, research has shown that “comprehensible input, however modified, might not be efficient, or even sufficient for SLA” (Pica, 2005, p. 274). In fact, “there is strong support for the role of production in SLA across social and cognitive perspectives” (p. 275). In addition to providing practice, Swain (2005) notes that output serves three important functions in SLA that are relevant to teaching L2 speaking. These functions arise because “the processes involved in producing language can be quite different than those involved in comprehending language” (p. 471).

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

49

The first benefit of output is called the noticing/triggering function. “While attempting to produce the target language … learners may notice that they do not know how to say (or write) precisely the meaning they wish to convey” (Swain, 2005, p. 474). This point, which is referred to as noticing the gap, underscores the importance of creating classroom activities that enable or even require students to express feelings, share ideas, or convey information. The second function is hypothesis testing: the idea that “output may sometimes be from the learners’ perspective, a ‘trial run’ reflecting their hypothesis of how to say (or write) their intent” (Swain, 2005, p. 476). When learners change their output as a result of feedback, we can sometimes infer that they were trying out a particular form, but then revised their awareness of the correct form: “Research has shown that learners do modify their output in response to such conversational moves as clarification requests or confirmation checks” (p. 476). The third function is the metalinguistic (or reflective) function: the notion that “using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self mediates second language learning” (Swain, 2005, p. 478). This concept is related to sociocultural theory, which we will discuss below. There is an essential distinction between the input hypothesis and the output hypothesis for teachers of L2 speaking and listening: In contradistinction to Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis, which argued for the necessity and sufficiency of comprehensible input, Swain argued that learners need to be pushed to produce comprehensible output, that is, output that is not only accurate but appropriate and coherent. (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 268; italics in the original)

As illustrated below, accuracy is related to linguistic competence, appropriacy to sociolinguistic competence, and coherence to discourse competence.

Linguistic competence Sociolinguistic competence Discourse competence

→ → →

Accuracy Appropriacy Coherence

Thornbury and Slade (2006) add that “output serves a number of important functions that input on its own does not. One of these is to force syntactic processing; another is to test hypotheses (Swain, 1985); while a third is to develop automaticity” (pp. 268–269).

4.2.4 Instructed SLA There was a time when a distinction was drawn between language learning and language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). The basic idea was that language learning takes place in classrooms, typically with an explicit focus on form. Naturalistic language acquisition, in contrast, does not occur as a result of lessons: It can be promoted through interaction with TL speakers. These days, the hypothesized distinction between learning and acquisition is not emphasized so much. In fact, SLA research has investigated both naturalistic language acquisition and language learning in instructional contexts.

50

Teaching Listening and Speaking

“Instructed learning occurs in a classroom or perhaps in a self-access center, whereas naturalistic learning occurs in everyday contexts of language use where the L2 is the medium of communication” (Ellis, 2005, p. 713). Discussions of instructed SLA cover both direct interventions and indirect interventions. In direct intervention, “the instruction specifies what it is that learners will learn and when they will learn it” (Ellis, 2005, p. 713). Direct intervention is characterized by pre-planned learning foci (e.g., grammar points or specified vocabulary items) determined by the teacher, the program, or the textbook. For instance, in a course based on a grammatical syllabus, students are supposed to learn particular grammar structures in sequence and on schedule. In contrast, in “indirect intervention, the purpose of the instruction is to create conditions where learners can learn experientially through learning how to communicate in the L2” (Ellis, 2005, p. 713). Indirect intervention is based on the idea that creating activities that compel students to communicate will give them both the opportunity and the motivation to learn the L2. Studies on direct and indirect intervention in instructed SLA have produced interesting results. For instance, Ellis (2005) reviewed eleven research reports on the effect of grammar instruction where the data were speech samples (as opposed to responses on tests or test-like activities). The grammar instruction was only found to be effective in terms of statistical significance in six of those studies. Ellis concluded that “grammar instruction does not always result in more accurate use of the targeted features in free oral production” (p. 715). In those particular studies where grammar instruction was found to be effective, however, the effect was lasting. That is, typically in experimental research there is a post-test given after a treatment of some sort—in this case, after grammar teaching. But, in some studies, there is also a delayed post-test, given to the learners sometime later, to see if the effects of instruction continue beyond the time of the treatment. That procedure was used in the studies Ellis reviewed and he concluded: “When an effect is found, it is durable” (2005, p. 715).

4.2.5 Form-focused Instruction The phrase focus on form (FonF) refers to brief attention to language features (the “forms”) during a communication context (typically in a lesson or a tutoring session). An early definition of FonF is from Long and Robinson (1998), who said that “during an otherwise meaning-focused classroom lesson, focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to the linguistic code features” (p. 23). This shift of the students’ attention is frequently “triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (p. 23). That shift can be initiated by either teachers or learners. The triggering can start with “a breakdown or error of some sort, or perhaps some difficulty in either production or comprehension” (Williams, 2005, p. 672). Williams (2005) notes that, with the upsurge of CLT, the emphasis on meaning often led teachers to ignore (or at least to avoid treating) learners’ errors. The emergence of FonF was thus seen by teachers and researchers “as permission to reintroduce grammar into their classrooms” (p. 671). Sometimes the phrase form-focused instruction is used “as an umbrella term for all approaches that draw learner attention to formal aspects of language” (p. 671).

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

51

Here is an example of just such a shift to FonF. I was observing an ESL writing lesson about thesis statements in students’ personal narratives, which was taught by my friend Penny. My records of the lesson say: At one point, when the students were having trouble with the prepositions in, on, and at, Penny drew three concentric circles (like a bull’s-eye on a target) on the whiteboard and gave a brief explanation of when to use each preposition. The students copied the drawing and the writing lesson continued, almost as if the small grammar lesson had been a brief side trip. (Bailey, 1996, p. 29)

Later, when I asked Penny about this part of the lesson, she said: “It was a narrative they were doing, and it had a lot of prepositions in it … They were born in this country, on this day, at this place” (Bailey, 1996, p. 30). Penny explained that in previous grammar classes she had taught a mini-lesson for teaching prepositions of time and place using the bulls-eye image: “So in is a place, a country, a state, a town. On is a street. At is the address” (p. 30). I asked Penny if she had planned to give that explanation in advance or had spontaneously decided to do it in class. She said she had planned to focus on the thesis statement, but she had added these points about prepositions because the students were getting frustrated about which prepositions to use in particular contexts. When I asked if she had gotten a reaction from the learners after the minilesson on prepositions, Penny laughed and said: “They love that, that kind of stuff. They love grammary, pencilly, writeydown things” (p. 30). Two strong statements about form-focused instruction are appropriate to include here. First, after a broad review of the literature, Hinkel (2006) notes that “explicit teaching and direct explanations of the L2 form-function connections represent a highly productive means of helping learners improve their L2 sociopragmatic skills” (p. 116). Second, Savignon (2005)—one of the main proponents of CLT—says: “Research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaningfocused experience” (p. 640).

4.2.6 Sociocultural Theory Another important development in SLA research is the application of sociocultural theory, which was based originally on writings by Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria. Their ideas have been applied to SLA research, and several components of this theory are relevant to the teaching of L2 speaking and listening. The term sociocultural refers to the idea that learning occurs in a “particular social setting (e.g., a classroom), in which there is interaction between people (teachers and students), objects (texts, books, images), and culturally organized activities (instructional acts and sequences)” (Richards & Rogers, 2014, p. 28). The sociocultural perspective on learning “focuses primarily on the social and cultural processes that contribute to the development of higher order cognitive functioning” (Thornbury  & Slade, 2006, p. 207). According to Swain (2005), sociocultural theory “puts language production in a ‘star role’ so to speak. Speaking and writing are conceived of as cognitive tools—tools that mediate internalization; and externalize internal psychological activity” (p. 480). There are three key issues from sociocultural theory that are directly related to the teaching of L2 speaking and listening: affordances, the zone of proximal development, and scaffolding.

52

Teaching Listening and Speaking

4.2.6.1 Affordances The idea of affordances is an important concept from sociocultural theory that can be directly related to teaching. An affordance is the “relationship between an organism and a particular feature of its environment” (van Lier, 2000, p. 252). While an affordance allows action, it neither triggers nor causes that action: “What becomes an affordance depends on what the organism does, what it wants, and what is useful for it” (p. 252). This somewhat abstract definition is clarified by considering a leaf as an example of an affordance. As van Lier notes, a leaf offers “different affordances to different organisms: crawling on for a tree frog, cutting for an ant, food for a caterpillar, shade for a spider, medicine for a shaman, and so on” (p. 252). He adds: “In all cases the leaf is the same: Its properties do not change … It is just that different properties are perceived and acted upon by different organisms” (p. 252). In terms of language teaching and learning, the idea of affordances can help us understand why learners benefit differently from the activities we use. Learners in the same classes may make various uses of lesson time: The reason we cannot predetermine what learners will and will not learn in a given activity is that learning depends heavily on the significance individuals assign to the various activities they participate in. In other words, there are reasons why people learn (or not) what they learn, when they learn it, and how they will learn it. (Lantolf, 2005, p. 346).

In other words, the lessons we teach provide different affordances for individual students: an opportunity to practice or learn something in the new language for many students, to see friends for teenagers in secondary school language classes, or to rest after a hard day at work for adult learners in evening survival language classes.

4.2.6.2 ZPD The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a wonderful label for something many teachers know intuitively: “The ZPD is a projection of a person’s developmental future in the sense that what one can do in cooperation with others today one can do alone tomorrow” (Lantolf, 2005, p. 336). Sociocultural theory posits that “the child (or learner) achieves the capacity to function autonomously in a skill by first sharing responsibility for the achievement of tasks with a more competent adult or peer—a process of joint problem-solving or other-regulation” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 207). An important question for teachers was posed by van Lier (1996) when he asked: “How do we, as caretakers or educators, ensure that our teaching actions are located within the ZPD, especially if we do not really have any precise idea of the innate timetable of every learner?” (p. 191). In response, he said that “researchers in the Vygotskian mold propose that social interaction, by virtue of its orientation toward mutual engagement and intersubjectivity, is likely to home in on the ZPD and stay within it” (p. 191). In the sociocultural view, what a person can do confidently and independently constitutes selfregulated action: “Beyond that there is a range of knowledge and skills which the person can only access with someone’s assistance” (van Lier, 1996, p. 190). The information (skills and/or knowledge) that is within the learner’s reach is the learner’s ZPD; however, “anything outside the circle of proximal

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

53

development is simply beyond reach and not yet available for learning” (p. 192). Expanding the ZPD can be done through interaction with peers, with more knowledgeable others, and through one’s own resources.

4.2.6.3 Scaffolding Another key term is scaffolding, a frequently used metaphor in sociocultural theory. Imagine a building that is being built, painted, or repaired. A scaffold is a temporary structure that is put in place above ground level so that workers can access the key external parts of the structure. An important feature of scaffolding, both in building and in SLA, is that it is temporary: it will be removed when it is no longer necessary. The purpose of scaffolding in teaching is “to create the contexts and supports that allow students to interact in their zone of proximal development” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 12). In other words, the scaffolded interaction provided by teachers and peers in language lessons (and potentially by other interlocutors outside the classroom) provides possible affordances for learning: The notion of “assisted performance” as a prerequisite for unassisted performance is fundamental to a sociocultural view of learning. Verbal scaffolding is one of the ways in which such assistance is provided and by means of which cognitive structures are inferred. As the structures become internalized, the scaffolds are gradually removed. (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 207)

In discussing the sociocultural hypothesis, Rost (2016) explained relevant implications related to teaching L2 listening. He notes that language learning is a complex socially situated phenomenon and part of acculturation (p. 141), which is defined as the “degree of understanding of, sympathy for, and integration with target culture norms and values” (p. 275). He adds that motivation develops through positive experiences with acculturation, and thus SLA is determined largely by the degree of psychological distance (gap between the language learner and the target culture) (p. 141).

4.2.7 Six Principles for Scaffolded Instruction The ideas reviewed above all have implications for the teaching of listening and speaking. But how do they translate into pedagogical action? Here we will consider six principles for scaffolding language instruction that support the development of learners’ listening and speaking skills. Walqui and van Lier (2010) describe these six scaffolding principles, which can be employed in language lessons. These ideas were influenced by sociocultural theory but also by van Lier’s (1996, 1998) research on interaction in language learning. These six concepts are arrayed on a continuum from more planned to less planned. The most planned of these principles is called continuity and coherence. This principle holds that, through repeating a task with variations added, learning can be promoted. Walqui and van Lier (2010) note that “classrooms have tasks and activities that occur again and again, but with variation and room for improvisation. Within these recurring, stable aspects of the classroom, learners find stability, as well as opportunities to innovate and take initiative” (p. 35).

54

Teaching Listening and Speaking

The second principle is that providing a supportive environment—in which learners experience safety and trust—creates opportunities for learning. Students need to feel “that any mistakes or failures will not be held against them” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 35). This idea is related to Krashen’s (1982) notion of the affective filter—a metaphorical barrier that, if raised, can prevent input from becoming intake. The third concept is intersubjectivity, which occurs when interlocutors (in this case, learners) have the experience of “being ‘in tune’ with each other” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 34). Intersubjectivity involves “mutual engagement” (p. 36). When intersubjectivity is working, learners “are happy to help others without being pushy and are comfortable asking for help without feeling embarrassed” (p. 36). Flow is the fourth principle (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). It is the idea that learners’ abilities and the learning challenges they face should be optimally balanced. Because the work is not so hard that the students get overwhelmed or so easy that they get bored, the learners can be “fully engaged” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 34). As Rost (2016) notes, “enjoyment removes barriers to learning” (p. 134). The fifth principle is called contingency. It refers to the idea that, in scaffolded learning, progress on and successful achievements of tasks depend on (i.e., they are contingent upon) the students’ actions. As the students interact with others, each action or “utterance calls forth the next one, and each action or utterance relates back to previous ones” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 37). To be sensitive to the contingency principle, teachers must be flexible and must pay close attention to the students’ discourse. Finally, the sixth principle is the least planned. It is referred to as emergence. It is also called the handover/takeover principle, a phrase that refers to the idea that students’ agency and autonomy increase (i.e., they emerge) as the learners become more proficient in the TL. As a result of becoming more independent, the students “take initiative in proposing, planning, constructing, and reflecting on subject area tasks” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 37).

4.3 Practical Activities While I was teaching in Hong Kong, I kept a teaching journal for the entire academic year, making entries every day after class. The diary revealed that I gradually learned to use five scaffolding strategies to help these learners benefit from our lessons. Although I believe these strategies worked well, I do not have research evidence to support their effectiveness. Instead, I simply want to share these techniques with you as illustrations of things we can do to scaffold our language students’ learning.

4.3.1 Using Multiple Channels The first scaffolding strategy, using multiple channels, is the idea that working through a combination of aural/oral and visual modes could scaffold my students’ understanding of spoken texts, including task instructions. It quickly became clear that not all the students understood activity directions I delivered orally in English, even if they said they did. As a result, using multiple channels was important, especially in the early days of our course as the students were getting used to my accent. (I was the first native English-speaking teacher they had encountered.) I soon learned that instructions delivered orally

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

55

should be followed or accompanied by written statements, pictures, and demonstrations or examples of the task. This strategy is related to the idea that “multi-modal processing boosts learning potential” (Rost, 2016, p. 136).

4.3.2 Feed Me Back the Task The phrase “feed me back the task” refers to a technique for making sure the students were paying attention and processing directions for an activity. I began doing this step because I noticed that, after I gave instructions (e.g., for group work), several students would look at one another or whisper together in Cantonese. So after giving instructions, I would ask a student to repeat the instructions for the whole class. This procedure had at least six potential outcomes: 1 It made the students pay careful attention, because they knew that they might be the person called upon to repeat the instructions. 2 It gave everyone a chance to hear the instructions (or some part of them) a second time. 3 If the student who repeated the instructions left something out or had misunderstood, the others heard the elaboration and/or corrections I provided. 4 This practice gave at least one person an additional opportunity to speak English in class. 5 This gave me a rough idea about whether the individual student had understood the instructions I had delivered only orally. 6 As needed, I could also use the ideas in the speaker’s utterances to write the key points on the board, thereby adding the visual channel as well.

4.3.3 Build in the Recognition Step The third scaffolding strategy, “build in the recognition step,” was a technique I added when I realized my students were often not fully processing the lesson vocabulary even though they told me they understood. Based on the preset syllabus, the vocabulary was presented to them in a list preceding a textbook reading passage. The learners typically reported that they understood the new vocabulary items when they saw the written forms; however, there is a difference between understanding a word in print (with ample time for rereading, using a dictionary, and processing the context) and understanding a spoken word when it arises in the speech stream of a novel oral text in real time. For my Hong Kong students, whose English learning experience had been exclusively in an FL context, the sounds of a spoken word might not have matched their mental image of the written word. For these reasons, I began inserting the new vocabulary from the written textbook passage into spoken texts. This input could be a brief summary of what we had just discussed, or it could be a different story that incorporated the lesson vocabulary. The learners’ task was to simply listen and raise their hands each time they heard me say one of the targeted vocabulary items. After a few lessons, I learned to have them signal with their index fingers instead of their hands, because I wanted to see how individual students were processing the input. Raising their hands made it too easy for the less secure students simply to follow suit.

56

Teaching Listening and Speaking

4.3.4 Compare with a Classmate The fourth scaffolding strategy, comparing with a classmate, emerged almost accidentally as a result of a few early lessons. The students were bright and eager, but many of them were very worried about having to speak English in class and losing face. For the first few weeks of the semester, I noticed that whenever I tried to elicit an oral response to a question, there would be hurried whispered conversations among seatmates. This pattern occurred whether I used a direct nomination (calling on a particular student) or a general solicit (posing a task or a question to the entire class). It seemed to me that the majority of the students—even the most advanced—engaged in this whispering behavior. One day, as the students were leaving class, I asked one of the more proficient learners what was going on: “What are you all whispering about when I ask you questions?” She gave an embarrassed laugh and said: “Oh, we have to check to see if we have the correct answer before we talk.” I realized that the students were not “cheating” and the class wasn’t really getting out of control. Instead, “these moments of comparison with a classmate actually gave the students confidence to share their ideas in front of the larger group but minimized the risk of loss of face” (Bailey, 2001, p. 18). At the next meeting, I told the students that it was normal to make mistakes in speaking a new language, that we learn through our errors, and that it wasn’t a problem if their speaking wasn’t perfect. I hoped this reassurance would encourage them to speak up more confidently; however, as I started the day’s lesson plan, the surreptitious whispering continued. In response, I decided not to try to stop these brief private interactions. Instead, I told the students that they should check with a classmate before raising their hands or giving an answer to a question. This idea seemed to surprise them initially, but they readily consulted their classmates—a process that we called “buzz with a buddy.”

4.3.5 Use Schema Activators The final strategy, using schema activators, is one that will be explored in more depth in Chapter 5. (A schema is a knowledge structure in our minds. The plural form is schemata.) The basic idea is that, before having our students listen to (or read) a text, we can help them mentally prepare appropriately for the incoming genre and topic. Schema activators are also sometimes called advance organizers because they help listeners (or readers) organize their understanding of the incoming message. I had given workshops on schema theory for teachers and was very familiar with that literature at one time. But in my EFL classes I was reminded that having abstract knowledge and being able to use it productively are two different things (declarative and procedural knowledge, respectively). The syllabus required that we study Robert Frost’s poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” The word sleigh is not mentioned in the poem, but as we started, I explained to the students that the narrator was driving a sleigh, and I even sketched an image of a sleigh (sans horse) on the board. After some discussion about the meaning of the poem, however, one of the students asked what kind of a car a sleigh was. Here was clearly a place where multimodal processing (Rost, 2016) in the form of an actual photo of a horse and sleigh would have helped my learners activate the appropriate schemata for understanding the poem.

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

57

4.4 Reflections When I returned to the United States and resumed my regular teaching job, I noticed that my EFL students had taught me about scaffolding my graduate students’ learning. I found myself using these five scaffolding techniques regularly, particularly in teaching an introductory statistics course. This change was not intentional. Instead, the experience of teaching EFL in Hong Kong raised my declarative knowledge about scaffolding to the procedural level. After examining my Hong Kong teaching journal, I wrote: “Ironically, as my EFL students were teaching me about scaffolding, I was in a scaffolded situation myself” (Bailey, 2001, p. 28). That is, I taught two sections of the speaking and listening course (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) in both the fall and spring semesters. This situation allowed me to make changes in my teaching on a daily basis, but also offered months of time for reflection. I can relate my experience to Walqui and van Lier’s (2010) six scaffolding principles: 1 The continuity and coherence principle is the idea that repeating task work with variation over time promotes learning. I taught the same EFL course four times—twice a semester for two semesters. 2 The principle of providing a supportive environment was certainly at work as well. My students were eager to learn and gradually became more willing to communicate and my colleagues were very supportive. 3 The principle of intersubjectivity holds that learning occurs when there is mutual engagement. My teaching journal reveals that I was fascinated by this teaching opportunity and most of the students were also invested, as illustrated by the reflection in Chapter 3 about Henry trying to buy coasters. 4 The flow principle is the idea that learners’ challenges and abilities are well balanced. There were a few times that year when I felt discouraged and overwhelmed, but for the most part I looked forward to teaching, enjoyed the lesson planning, and recorded my experiences faithfully in the teaching journal. 5 The contingency principle holds that actions and utterances refer to and are built upon previous actions and utterances. As I repeated my lesson plans, I improved upon them, both within and across semesters. In addition, class activities were strongly influenced by the students’ interests, concerns, and points of confusion. 6 The emergence principle, or “handover/takeover principle” (Walqui & van Lier, 2010, p. 37), is the notion that as agency and autonomy increase learning is supported. I gradually departed more and more from the prescribed syllabus and added to the basic input of the textbook. As a teacher learning more about her craft, I became more adept at taking “initiative in proposing, planning, constructing, and reflecting” on my tasks (p. 37). Let me close this Reflections section with the following quotation from Bailey (2001): As teachers, all of us have a choice: Do we continue to do what we’ve always done in the past, or do we grow and change? I submit that by reflecting on our teaching (whether by keeping a journal or by other means), we take the first steps toward professional growth. Our students have a great deal to teach us, if we choose to learn. (p. 29)

58

Teaching Listening and Speaking

4.5 Challenges We can look at the input to language learners as consisting of both positive evidence and negative evidence about the TL. Gass (1997) provides the following analysis. Positive evidence “comprises the set of well-formed sentences to which the learners are exposed” (p. 36). It is partially on the basis of such utterances that learners build their understanding of the TL. Listening to L2 speech is one of the main sources of such input. Negative evidence is “information provided to learners concerning the incorrectness of an utterance” (p. 37). Negative evidence can take the form of explicit error treatment or implicit feedback. Implicit feedback consists of recasts in which the interlocutor repeats the learner’s utterance (e.g., with rising intonation) or elaborates upon it. Here are some examples in response to the learner’s utterance “He goed to school.”

1 Explicit negative feedback: “Don’t say ‘goed.’ Say ‘went’ to school.” 2 Implicit negative feedback:

2(a). Simple recast: “He goed to school?”



2(b). Elaborated recast: “Oh, do you mean he went to school?”

In language lessons, negative evidence can be reactive or preemptive. Reactive negative evidence occurs after learners make errors, as in the examples above. Preemptive negative evidence is given in anticipation of frequent types of errors, for instance, in a language lesson or tutoring session. Thus, an interesting challenge for us as teachers is that we must decide—often instantaneously—whether to react to our students’ spoken errors and, if so, how. On the one hand, we don’t want to discourage them or disregard their meaning. On the other hand, we want our students to develop their accuracy in speaking, so we try to help them internalize correct forms. One step to take to avoid interrupting communication is to listen to our students as they talk individually or in pair work or group work. By making notes on the errors we hear, we can decide on how to respond and how to plan future lessons. As Lantolf (2005) has noted, “holding off on feedback offers learners the opportunity to gain fuller control of knowledge that immediate explicit assistance might not” (p. 339). Another point to keep in mind is the old concept of cognitive feedback and affective feedback (Vigil & Oller, 1976). Cognitive feedback is the information given to learners about their TL errors. Affective feedback refers to the attitude with which cognitive feedback is given, which can range from positive and encouraging to punitive and discouraging. It is thought that negative cognitive feedback coupled with positive affective feedback will encourage learners to correct their errors and continue trying to communicate. Another issue is whether recasts, especially simple recasts, are recognized as corrective feedback. After reviewing research on recasts, Williams (2005) noted that such feedback can sometimes be ambiguous: “Learners were unsure whether the recasts were corrections or simply affective or meaningbased feedback” (p. 674).

Second Language Acquisition and Teaching

59

The concept of scaffolding should make us reconsider how we respond to learners’ spoken errors. Providing the correct form immediately (as was the practice in the Audiolingual Method) may be the least effective way to promote the development of L2 accuracy. If learners simply repeat the form when the teacher supplies it, the activity may move forward without the students actually having internalized the correct form.

4.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter we have considered several key concepts from SLA that are related to the teaching of listening and speaking. We saw that the input hypothesis and the interaction hypothesis have very different implications for whether and when we want our students to start speaking in the TL. The idea of pushed output takes the interaction hypothesis a step further and tells us that there are acquisitional benefits to be gained by pushing our students to speak the TL. Finally, we read about three key concepts from sociocultural theory: affordances, scaffolding, and the zone of proximal development. We learned about Walqui and van Lier’s (2010) six principles for scaffolding language learning and read about my efforts to scaffold my EFL students’ efforts to use the TL. The challenges discussed here focused on the provision of negative evidence, including error treatment, as a way of promoting learning.

  Discussion Questions 1 Can you recall a time when you learned something in a new language simply by listening? What was the context? What did you learn? 2 Think of a time you learned something in a new language through speaking with someone in that language. What was the context? What did you learn? How do you think you learned it? Did you negotiate for meaning during the interaction? 3 Which of the six principles of pedagogical scaffolding from Walqui and van Lier (2010) would matter to you as a language learner? Which ones have you tried to incorporate in your teaching? 4 This chapter introduced the interactionist concepts of confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests. Have you yourself utilized any of these moves, either as a language learner or when you were talking with a language learner? If so, which of these moves do you recall using and what was the outcome? 5 In your own experience as a language learner, have you ever been aware of your own ZPD? That is, have L2 interactions ever been too difficult for you? What were the circumstances? What did you do?

60

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Using Swain’s concept of pushed output, think about the language learners you (wish to) teach. Identify two or more learning activities you could design using pushed output to help your students notice the gap between what they can say and what they want to say. 2 Use the six principles of scaffolding from Walqui and van Lier (2010) to analyze the five strategies I used with my Hong Kong students. That is, do the labels from Walqui and van Lier fit any of my strategies? 3 Watch a video recording of a lesson in your TL. How does the teacher handle learners’ spoken errors? Is negative evidence provided or not? Think about the times when the teacher does provide feedback on oral errors. How is that feedback provided? Compare your analysis to that of a classmate or colleague who has watched the same video. 4 Think of a syntactic structure that is typically difficult for learners of the language you (wish to) teach. Identify some scaffolding steps you could use to help your students master that structure.

  Suggested Readings ●●

●● ●●

Walqui and van Lier’s (2010) book, Scaffolding the Academic Success of Adolescent English Language Learners, is the source of the principles of pedagogical scaffolding summarized here. It provides clear examples about how to support our students’ learning. Lightbown and Spada (2013) have written an excellent book called How Languages Are Learned. Two edited books about sociocultural theory in our field are Lantolf’s Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (2000) and Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (Lantolf & Appel, 1994).

  Technological Tools Please visit TIRF’s website to download free reference lists on FonF, interaction, output in FL and SL contexts, SLA, and sociocultural theory.

Chapter 5 Teaching Listening in a Second or Foreign Language

5.1 Introduction Listening is the first of the four skills that we engage in as infants acquiring our mother tongue. Listening also plays a central role in L2 acquisition (Chapter 4) and has been the basis of some important teaching methods (Chapter 2). This chapter examines the construct of L2 listening. There are many contexts in which we must listen to information in a new language but cannot or do not interact with the source of that information. These situations include listening for pleasure (watching television or movies or listening to songs, podcasts, or radio programs) and contexts where we need to understand spoken information, such as announcements in bus or train stations or in airports.

Guiding Questions 1 What is listening comprehension? 2 What are the processes of decoding and meaning building? 3 What are the various types of listening? 4 What are content schemata and formal schemata? 5 What are authentic materials? What role do they play in the teaching of L2 listening? 6 What is inferencing? Why is it challenging for language learners?

Of course, much listening is done in interactive situations, such as conversations. We will address those concerns in Chapter 7. Here we will focus on students’ listening challenges in primarily non-interactive contexts, where learners have little or no opportunity to seek clarification or confirm their understanding. A brief discussion of formal and content schemata follows, along with an introduction to top-down and bottom-up processing. Knowing about these topics will help you understand the role of background knowledge in developing listening comprehension activities.

62

Teaching Listening and Speaking

5.2 What We Know As noted above, some listening contexts are highly interactive while others are largely or completely non-interactive. Slightly different terms are sometimes used to describe this contrast. For instance, Richards and Burns (2012) use the phrases reciprocal talk, “where turns are taken in being a speaker and listener” (p. 4), and non-reciprocal talk, “where one participant just listens” (p. 4). These categories are ends of a continuum, however, rather than being dichotomous. For example, in an academic lecture, much of the speech event is non-interactive, but it may become somewhat more interactive if the lecturer invites the audience members to comment and ask questions. Whether L2 listening contexts are reciprocal or nonreciprocal, listeners must somehow make sense of the incoming speech so they can understand it.

5.2.1 Decoding and Meaning Building According to Field (2008), listening consists of two broad processes—decoding and meaning building. Decoding begins as listeners receive acoustic signals (sound waves). When those sounds are spoken utterances (as opposed to instrumental music or random noise), listeners must first recognize them as TL sounds, which are then mapped onto words, phrases, or sentences in the listener’s L2 vocabulary. This process is known as decoding: “analyzing the sounds in the speech stream with a view to matching them to words, phrases, and sentences” (p. 346). But the same words, phrases, and sentences can have different meanings depending on suprasegmental features of speech. As we saw in Chapter 1, the words “He’s a doctor” can be a statement of fact, a question or indication of surprise, or an expression of shocked incredulity, depending on the stress, pitch, and intonation the speaker uses. Correctly interpreting these features is essential to understanding spoken messages. Contextual factors also play a role in interpreting utterances. Picture a scene where two people step outside of a restaurant after a meal, and one says to the other: “Nice night!” This utterance can be an expression of appreciation for the beautiful evening if the temperature is balmy and the stars are shining. But the same utterance can convey extreme sarcasm if the wind is howling and an icy rain is pelting down. Thus both linguistic factors (e.g., lexical selection and suprasegmental phonemes) and contextual factors contribute to meaning building: “adding to the bare meaning of what a speaker says by drawing upon outside context and upon what had been said so far; and selecting relevant information from what a speaker has said and building it into an overall discourse pattern” (Field, 2008, p. 349). As teachers, we must help our learners develop their listening comprehension because “in most circumstances, the ultimate goal of listening to a piece of speech is to extract meaning from it” (Field, 2012, p. 209). The ability to do so “depends heavily upon the ability to decode input confidently and automatically” (p. 209). For this reason, “it is clearly important for listening instruction to feature practice in low-level decoding as well as in extracting meaning” (p. 209). To focus exclusively on decoding is not sufficient, however, other factors come into play, including the listeners’ background knowledge about the speech they hear.

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

63

5.2.2 The Role of Background Knowledge As we saw in Chapter 2, “during the 1970s, listening pedagogy largely emphasized the development of learners’ abilities to identify words, sentence boundaries, contractions, individual sounds, and sound combinations, that is, the bottom-up linguistic processing” (Hinkel, 2006, p. 117). In other words, decoding was emphasized. Teaching listening as a skill in L2 contexts has not always been a primary focus. For many years, having students listen was basically a way to introduce new grammar points (Field, 2012). Learners would hear “short and sometimes very contrived dialogues, which provided a context for the structure that was being introduced and practiced” (Field, 2012, p. 207). These kinds of activities “took the form of low-level word and phoneme recognition using dictation or ear training. It was not until the late 1960s that listening was fully recognized as a skill to be practiced in its own right” (p. 207). But listening gradually came to be recognized as an important skill that was bigger than the components of auditory reception: Accounts of the L1 listening process have moved away from simple bottom-up ideas based on building smaller units into larger (phonemes into syllables, syllables into words, etc.). Instead … a listener processes speech at several levels simultaneously, weighing the cues from all of them (phoneme, syllable, word, chunk, co-text) in order to match sounds to words. (p. 214)

In this context, the term bottom-up refers to focusing on specific components of the TL rather than on the larger top-down issues that have to do with our cultural, genre-based, topical, and situational background knowledge. In the 1980s, there was a shift from considering listening as being “predominantly linguistic to a schema-based view, and listening pedagogy moved away from its focus on the linguistic aspects of comprehension to the activation of learners’ top-down knowledge” (Hinkel, 2006, p. 117). According to this view, listening comprehension “hinges on listeners’ abilities to activate their knowledge-based schemata, such as cultural constructs, topic familiarity, discourse clues, and pragmatic conventions” (p. 117). When we listen to (or read) an incoming message, we use our knowledge of the TL’s phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and genre. We also interpret the genre and information of the text in terms of what we already know. Our mental background knowledge structures, which influence our interpretations, are called schemata. There are two major categories of schemata: those related to content and those related to form. Our content schemata are the knowledge structures in our minds that are based on our subject matter knowledge. For example, if you have a background in economics, you will probably understand a news report on international economic issues better than someone who lacks that knowledge. In contrast, our formal schemata are those knowledge structures that enable us to recognize the genre of what we are hearing (or reading). For example, if we are listening to the radio or watching television, we can distinguish among news broadcasts, mystery programs, talk-shows, advertisements, and public safety announcements. So in this case the word formal is related to form: It is not used in contrast to informal. Listening comprehension consists of understanding spoken texts, but understanding is not an either/ or issue; it is a continuum. Rost (2016, p. 53) describes six levels of understanding:

64

Teaching Listening and Speaking

1 In non-understanding, the listener “is unable to activate any appropriate schemata to understand.” 2 In misunderstanding, the listener “activates schemata that have significant mismatches to the speaker’s schemata.” 3 Partial understanding occurs when the listener “activates a schema that includes some overlap with the speaker’s active schemata.” 4 Plausible understanding means that the listener “activates schema that include central items in the speaker’s discourse, though not largely shared.” 5 Acceptable understanding occurs in cases where the listener “activates schema that include central items in the speaker’s discourse, largely shared with the speaker.” 6 In cases of complete understanding, the listener “activates schema that are completely shared with the speaker.” Teaching learners about these levels of misunderstanding can help them make progress in their L2 listening comprehension. There are times, however, when schema activation can go awry. Here is an example of when top-down and bottom-up processing led to a misunderstanding: One day I was leaving the US Embassy in Rome with my friend Dee Parker, who worked there. Dee was momentarily detained, but she told me to go ahead and get the taxi that was parked at the curb. The driver was leaning against the car door, smoking a cigarette. As I got into the taxi, the driver asked me a question in Italian—a language I don’t speak. I only understood a tiny part of what he said, something about “okay” and “smoking.” My California-based content schemata led me to believe that he had asked me if I minded that he smoked while he drove. I responded with my best fakin’-it Italian accent and said, “No problema.” At that moment Dee came out of the Embassy and got into the taxi. The driver spoke to her in rapid Italian, to which she responded vehemently in her own very fluent Italian, ending with “No! Absolutamente no!” She then turned to me incredulously and said, “Kathi, did you tell him we’d buy him cigarettes at the Embassy store? It’s illegal!” Needless to say, I was very surprised. My inappropriate content schemata use had led me to completely misinterpret the taxi driver’s question. (Bailey & Curtis, 2015, p. 84)

In this case, both my top-down and bottom-up processing steered me wrong. I understood the Italian word for smoking (bottom-up processing) and combined it with my California attitudes toward smoking in enclosed spaces (top-down processing). Unfortunately, my interpretation resulted in an example of non-understanding according to Rost’s (2016) categories.

5.2.3 Types of Listening We listen in many different ways, depending on the purpose for listening. Are we trying to get a general idea of the message or do we need specific information? Are we listening for entertainment? Or are we listening to try to understand someone’s feelings? Listening to get a broad overview of key ideas is called gisting. Field (2008) notes that listening lessons often consist of two phases. The first, which

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

65

he calls extensive listening, “serves a similar purpose to skimming a reading text: It ensures some familiarity with the content” (p. 14). In other words, we want to get the gist of the spoken message. In this phase of a lesson, broad comprehension questions would be asked about who the speakers are, what they are talking about, and so on. In the second phase, which Field calls intensive listening, the students listen for details and answer specific questions. Ideas for designing language instruction using five different types of listening have been discussed by Rost (2016). Like Field (2008), Rost explains intensive listening and extensive listening, but he also describes selective listening, interactive listening, and autonomous listening. We will briefly discuss four of these types here, and then examine interactive listening in detail in Chapter 7.

5.2.3.1 Intensive Listening Intensive listening involves listening closely to hear specific linguistic elements (words, phonemes, etc.). Accurate perception is important in the “higher level comprehension of ideas” (Rost, 2016, p. 170). Rost (2016) describes nine “strategies to develop with intensive listening” (p. 171): 1 Focusing attention involves concentrating and ignoring distractions. 2 Directed attention is really focusing on the task. 3 Selective attention is honing in on key points. 4 Persistent attention is listening broadly “even if temporarily distracted by unknown language.” 5 Noticing attention is “attending to new language, specific language, rhetorical forms in the input.” 6 Monitoring consists of “verifying or adjusting one’s understanding or way of understanding during a task.” 7 Comprehension monitoring refers to “checking how well one is understanding, identifying ­problematic aspects in the input.” 8 Double-check monitoring involves “verifying one’s initial understanding and making revisions in understanding as needed, during the second listening to the same input.” 9 Emotional monitoring is “keeping track of one’s own feelings, encouraging oneself to keep listening, finding ways to counter negative emotions and anxiety.” Emotional monitoring can be especially important. It can help learners forestall frustration and discouragement factors that can lead them to stop trying.

5.2.3.2 Selective Listening The next type—selective listening—involves listening with a specific focus. For instance, learners may concentrate on numbers, dates, times, places, directions, setting, facts, etc. To design an effective selective listening activity, it is important to determine what sorts of listening our learners must do. Pre-listening activities are important for guiding students in selective listening activities. Rost (2016, p. 176) identifies seven strategies to use in selective listening contexts:

66

Teaching Listening and Speaking

1.  Planning includes understanding the task and deciding what steps to take. 2.  Advance organizing refers to determining goals before engaging in a listening task. 3.  Self-management entails task rehearsal. 4.  Evaluating is comparing one’s own listening to some pre-set standard or answer key. 5.  Performance evaluation involves the learners checking what they’ve done with regard to the activity goals. 6.  Problem evaluation entails determining what issues must be resolved by listening. 7.  Revision evaluation is “choosing a second listening to assist understanding.”

Rost notes that pre-listening activities “heighten the degree of anticipation, which fuels motivation” (p. 176). Of course, lessons that involve selective listening also include substantial discussion, so that L2 speaking is not ignored.

5.2.3.3 Extensive Listening The fourth type is extensive listening, which is defined as “listening for an extended period of time while focusing on global meaning, comprehension building, and critical thinking” (Rost, 2016, p. 181). We should acknowledge that the word extended is not specifically defined. What might be a brief listening experience for advanced language learners could seem extended to lower proficiency learners. Rost (2016) suggests several strategies that students can use to develop their extensive listening skills. First, planning involves anticipating what the listeners will hear and being aware of what they must do. Second, they must sometimes draw inferences from what they hear “to predict content or to fill in the missing information” (p. 181). They should also use review: “the condensing, reordering, or transferring of what one has processed to help understanding, memory storage, or retrieval” (p. 181). Reviewing can involve summarizing, discussing with a classmate, or transferring what was heard into another modality (e.g., by drawing a picture, doing a role play, or rewriting the ending of a film or story).

5.2.3.4 Autonomous Listening Finally, autonomous listening involves self-directed listening activities. The learners choose what to listen to and decide how they will respond. They then seek feedback on their comprehension and monitor their own progress. Rost (2016) notes that all naturalistic language acquisition (that is, learning without classroom lessons, tutorials, or online courses) includes some autonomous listening. As teachers, we can provide a selection of listening materials from which our learners can choose, but we can also encourage them to seek out their own listening materials. If in-class follow-up is desirable, listeners can submit a simple listening log containing brief statements about their experiences (e.g., what they listened to, how long it took, a summary of the contents or plot, what was challenging, what was rewarding, etc.).

5.2.4 Listening Strategies Strategies are “decisions that the user (the learner) makes” and successful strategies need to be “identified, modeled, and practiced” (Rost, 2016, p. 186). Hinkel (2006) notes that “strategies are under

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

67

learners’ conscious control, and listeners can be taught to compensate for incomplete understanding, missed linguistic or schematic input, or misidentified clues” (p. 119). There are several elaboration strategies language learners can use, particularly to promote their autonomous listening. These include elaborating: “using prior knowledge from outside the input and relating it to content in the input in order to enrich one’s interpretation” (Rost, 2016, p. 186). Rost (2016) also refers to personal elaboration, which involves connecting the listening material to our own prior experiences, and world elaboration—connecting the content to what we know about the world. Another such strategy is creative elaboration: “making up background information to contextualize the inputs, generating questions that relate to the input or introducing new possibilities to extend the input” (p. 186). Finally, what Rost calls visual elaboration is “using mental visualizations to represent aspects of the input” (p. 186). There are also three subtypes of the broad strategies of evaluating, which Rost (2016) defines as “checking the outcome of one’s listening process against a standard of accuracy or completeness” (p. 186). He describes performance evaluation (“checking one’s overall attainment of the task goals”), problem evaluation (“identifying what specific issue needs to be solved or understood or what part of the listening task still needs to be completed”), and revision evaluation (“choosing a second listening to assist understanding or selecting an alternative way of accomplishing a listening task”; all three definitions are from p. 186). After reviewing the literature on listening strategies, Field (2012) concludes that “drawing attention to the value of strategies increases self-efficacy,” which is defined as “personal judgements of one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to attain designated goals” (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 83). The claim is that by using these techniques, “learners become more confident about their ability to crack the code of apparently intractable pieces of spoken language” (Field, 2012, p. 211). Developing listening strategies can be useful outside of language lessons. Helping students “handle listening exercises strategically boosts their confidence when they come to real-life listening encounters, even if the preplanning techniques they have acquired have limited applicability in circumstances that call for immediate and impromptu responses to problems of understanding” (Field, 2012, p. 211). Thus listening strategies can be just as important as communication strategies for L2 development.

5.2.5 Phases of Listening Lessons Richards and Burns (2012) refer to the pre-listening, while-listening, and post-listening phases of a lesson. Traditionally, in the pre-listening stage, teachers would pre-teach the vocabulary and/or the structures in the listening passage. In the post-listening phase, teachers would ask comprehension questions about the text (Field, 2008). Field (2012) expands on the phases of listening lessons. He notes that experienced language teachers often plan listening lessons around a series of steps or phases, but he elaborates on the foci of the various phases by combining lesson stages with some of the types of listening: “prelistening, extensive listening, preset questions or tasks, intensive listening, language of the recording, and final play” (p. 208).

68

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Intensive listening leads to “language-focused learning” (Rost, 2016, p. 171). It helps learners concentrate on grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and even pragmatics (a topic we will explore in Chapter 11). Rost (2016) lists several types of intensive listening activities. These include dictation, a traditional testing procedure, which has language learning value as well; elicited repetition, which is used for assessment, research, and teaching; finding particular words; and locating errors.

5.2.6 Authentic Listening Materials In recent years, a major discussion in the teaching of listening and reading has been about the use of authentic materials. What does this term mean and why is this issue important? Authentic materials are defined as “oral and written texts that occur naturally in the target language environment and have not been created or edited expressly for language learners” (Larimer & Schleicher, 1999, p. v). There was a time when people referred to “authentic” texts as language produced by native speakers for native speakers. According to Field (2008): “The term ‘authentic’ usually refers to listening items originally intended for the ears of a native listener rather than specially prepared for language learners” (p. 23). This point is historically correct, but we must note that there is nothing sacrosanct about having native speakers communicating with one another as a criterion of authenticity. Non-native speakers’ communications in a common language that is not the L1 of either person are also authentic. For example, once, in a restaurant in Dubai, I eavesdropped on an English conversation between a Japanese man and an Emirati man. They were discussing a possible business deal and their conversation was very authentic, in the sense that (1) they were communicating; and (2) it featured contingent interaction. On another occasion, when I was working in Slovakia, I needed to communicate with a local administrator who didn’t speak English well. Unfortunately, I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of Slovak. We found that our common language was Spanish, which we were able to use to solve the problem we faced. The point is that in recent years the term authentic materials has been used to characterize texts (whether spoken or written) that originated as instances of non-classroom communication rather than as pedagogical starting points. Field (2012) recommends “the early introduction of authentic materials and with it a program that raises awareness of compensatory strategies and demonstrates how to use them” (p. 211). He adds that extended listening practice gives learners the chance “to integrate and apply the various processes and strategies to which they have been introduced” (p. 211). There was a time when textbook reading passages and audio recordings for language lessons were written specifically to convey the vocabulary and grammar points being covered in the curriculum. As noted in Chapter 2, whatever topical information was shared in the listening text was called the carrier topic, because it carried the grammar and/or vocabulary items that were the actual point of the exercise. The students were not expected to learn about the topic itself. They were only expected to learn the vocabulary and grammar in the passage. There were at least two negative consequences of using carrier topics, however. The first was that the resulting texts frequently seemed stilted and unnatural—especially those that claimed to be conversations. The second was that students who had done well in understanding the language in their textbooks and class lessons would often struggle when faced with actual spoken TL utterances outside

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

69

the classroom. In response to this situation, there was a widespread call for listening and reading materials to be more authentic. This development was supported by evolving technologies—initially, cassette tape recorders for listening material and photocopying for reproducing authentic reading materials. More recently, both audio and video digital recordings have given us ample opportunities to share TL speech samples with our students. Teachers and learners may worry that such texts will be too advanced for students at lower proficiency levels. If the spoken text is dialogic, “it will contain conversational features such as fillers, false starts, and overlapping turns, that are unfamiliar to those used only to scripted material” (Field, 2012, p. 211). Authentic speech samples are not cleaned up. They involve hesitations, repetitions, vocalized fillers, turn overlaps, and word searches—all of which occur in natural (non-scripted) conversation. An important benefit of using authentic materials in listening lessons is that they familiarize students with “real-life situations where they cannot count on familiarity with every single item of vocabulary, idiom, or syntax that they encounter” (Field, 2012, p. 211). If students are only exposed to carefully rehearsed and skillfully presented spoken texts, “early-stage learners will find themselves unable to follow simple samples of everyday speech in spite of the instruction they receive” (p. 210). Field (2012) adds that, in today’s globalized world, language learners are “increasingly likely to encounter such samples through TV, films, and the Internet, if not through contact with L1 speakers” (p. 210). Thus, it behooves us to prepare our students to deal with authentic spoken texts.

5.3 Practical Activities Teachers can utilize at least four different types of recorded audio input in language lessons: (1) recordings provided in published textbook materials; (2) recordings of speech made by the teachers themselves or by students; (3) authentic materials (from the internet, radio or television broadcasts, movies, etc.); or (4) authentic materials that teachers have adapted to suit their own students’ needs and proficiency level. Of course, if we do adapt texts in some way to use with our learners, the resulting materials no longer meet Larimer and Schleicher’s (1999) criterion that they not be “edited expressly for language learners” (p. v). Eight criteria for selecting listening passages to use with language learners have been identified by Field (2008):

1. Are the texts relevant to the students’ needs and related to the course syllabus? 2. Is the topic of interest to the listeners? 3. Are the materials culturally appropriate in terms of their content? 4. What linguistic demands are placed on the learners by the vocabulary and syntax of the texts? 5. What cognitive demands do the passages place upon the listeners in terms of the density and complexity of the ideas? 6. How good is the quality of the recording? 7. In terms of logistical considerations, how long is the passage? 8. Finally, in terms of exploitability, can the text be used for a range of listening tasks?

70

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Please note that the “quality of the recording” refers to the sound quality—not the grammaticality or the clarity of the speech per se. Many commercially produced listening texts have excellent sound quality but lack the messy features of natural speech (e.g., overlaps, hesitations, filled pauses, reduced forms, and so on). It is important that learners be familiar with these speech phenomena, which they will surely encounter outside the classroom.

5.3.1 Using Songs for Listening Activities Many teachers (myself included) believe that TL songs are useful sources of input for non-reciprocal listening activities. Unless the songs were written specifically for teaching purposes, their lyrics are a type of authentic material. How are TL songs helpful as teaching materials? Obviously, they embody vocabulary and grammar. Singing or listening to songs can also provide a natural context for repetition, whether learners are producing or receiving language. Songs also provide ample exposure to the segmental phonemes of the TL, as well as formulaic expressions. For instance, the Spanish phrase “de todo un poco” (a little bit of everything) is repeated several times in a song by that name. The phrase is useful at buffets in Latin America if you are asked what you would like to eat. Songs can be used in a wide variety of ways, for both in-class activities and homework. Such activities can also be adapted for learners at different proficiency levels. For example, true beginners can do listening exercises with TL songs about anything that can be pictured—scenery (beaches, mountains, flowers, rivers), animals, people, seasons, and so on. The teacher distributes to the students pictures of whatever nouns occur in the lyrics of the song—first naming the items in the photos and then asking the students to hold up their own copies of the photos as the teacher names the item(s) in a particular picture. The next step is to play the song and have the students listen and hold up their photos when the specific items pictured are mentioned in the lyrics. This task is essentially a vocabulary recognition activity that promotes focused listening and selective attention (Rost, 2016). To make it more challenging, you can give each student additional photos representing other items named in the song after the first listening. With somewhat more advanced language learners, you can also choose songs or have students select songs related to the topics or themes of lessons and then explain their choice to their classmates before playing the song for the whole group. If you have access to the technology for generating slideshows, the students can choose photos that illustrate the lyrics and play the slideshow as their classmates listen to the song. A word of warning is in order here, however: You should listen to the students’ choices first to make sure the songs they select are appropriate to play for the whole class. This caution is especially important in working with children or teenagers, but also in SL contexts where you may have students from many different cultures. What may be acceptable in lyrics for some students could be offensive to others. Another focused listening activity that can be done with literate language learners involves using the lyrics of a song as a cloze passage—that is, a written text from which some of the words have been deleted. Usually every seventh or ninth word is deleted in cloze passages used for reading practice or assessment—a process called nth word deletion. You can also delete the specific words you want the

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

71

students to focus on, however, in a process that is called rational deletion. To make the cloze passage task more challenging for more proficient students, you can delete entire phrases instead of single words. For literate language learners at the intermediate or high-beginner level, you can start with a production step by having them read the cloze passage based on the lyrics and try to fill in the blanks before they listen to the song. You can add pair work by having the students compare their ideas about the missing words with a partner, making adjustments in their predictions if they wish to do so after the sharing step. The next step is to play the song and have the students fill in the blanks as they listen. At this point, the activity becomes a partial dictation, that is, a written text with some blanks, which the learners fill in while listening. If you are using paper worksheets, this process is facilitated if you double- or even triple-space the printed lines of the cloze passage to leave plenty of room for the students to write. You can also print the same cloze passage on both sides of a page, so students can use one side for their predictions and one side for transcribing the missing words from the lyrics as they listen to the song. Once again, it is worthwhile to have students compare what they have written with their partners after they have listened to the song.

5.3.2 Other Uses of Partial Dictation Using a partial dictation creates a context where learners must listen for very specific information. This example from Bailey and Curtis (2015, p. 34) is based on an announcement made in an airplane. The plane was arriving late and was about to land at its destination, when a voice was heard over the plane’s public address system. The information printed in bold in the text below is deleted in the partial dictation when it is read aloud. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first flight attendant again. I apologize for our late arrival, but I do have some connecting gate information for those of you making connections to other flights here in Tokyo. At this time we have been informed about the following flights:

Flight seven-forty-six to Singapore will depart from gate seventy-three at nine-thirty p.m.



Flight ten-forty-five to Hong Kong will depart at nine-fifteen p.m. from gate seventeen.



Flight forty-four to Beijing will depart at nine-thirty-five p.m. from gate sixty.



And flight sixteen-thirty-three to Kuala Lumpur will depart from gate nineteen at ten-fifteen p.m. Please be sure to check the television monitors when you enter the terminal building, since gate

assignments may change. (p. 34)

Obviously, in doing this partial dictation, test-takers must listen for specific numerals (gate numbers, times, and flight numbers). And, in fact, it is good to have students write numerals in the blanks instead of words (e.g., 73 instead of seventy-three) to reduce the problem of having to determine students’ listening skills via their writing. Field (2008) has pointed out that, when people are really on a delayed flight, they would be listening only for information about their own destination. To make this listening activity more authentic, each

72

Teaching Listening and Speaking

student could be given the name of a particular destination (Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Kuala Lumpur, and so on). In that way, the students would be listening for the time and gate number of their own flight. The students who had been assigned the same city could compare the gate numbers, flight numbers, and departure times that they had heard before the teacher reveals the answer key.

5.3.3 Listening to News and Announcements In our lives outside of the language classroom, there are many situations in which we listen without speaking. These contexts include both audio-plus-visual contexts (movies, television programs, internet videos, and televised sports events) as well as audio-only contexts (podcasts, radio programs, recorded interviews or lectures, etc.). We encounter some of these sources of input in person—for instance, if we attend a lecture or a concert—but we listen to others from a distance through technological tools (e.g., recorded telephone messages). Sometimes we listen for information. Sometimes we listen for entertainment and pleasure. Sometimes we listen for help. In many of these contexts, we do not have the opportunity to ask for clarification, although if we are listening to a recording, we can replay the message to try to get basic information. For instance, to find out what motion pictures are currently playing, in some cities, students can call a local movie theater and listen to the recording about which films are playing at what time. If a theater employee answers, the verbal exchange becomes a reciprocal learning activity. What kinds of listening must we do in these various contexts? As an intermediate speaker of Spanish, the way I attend to Spanish radio news or music programs when I am driving is vastly different from the way I listen to Spanish-language airport or bus station announcements in Mexico City. If I misunderstand something in the news, I can listen to it again later in the day or look it up on the internet, but if I misunderstand the announcement, I may miss the bus or the flight. Listening for specific details in an announcement that is immediately relevant to me is an example of intensive listening, while getting the gist of the information in a news broadcast is an instance of extensive listening.

5.3.4 Listening during Films and Television Programs The internet now provides us with access to thousands of movies, videos, and television programs in many different languages. Having students listen while watching is an example of multimodal processing, which Rost (2016) claims can enhance language learning. Sometimes, in preparing for jobs in Latin America, I have watched and listened to films in Spanish that I’ve previously seen in English. For someone at my intermediate proficiency level, watching the familiar Harry Potter stories without subtitles, for instance, is quite different from watching a film in Spanish (Pan’s Labyrinth or The Red Violin) for the first time and without subtitles. Watching TL films with subtitles in the native language can also be productive, if the learners focus on listening and use the L1 subtitles to confirm their understanding, instead of relying on the subtitles from the outset. In terms of listening activities, we can have our learners engage in different uses of the input in listening to motion pictures. They can watch a film for the first time in the TL with no subtitles; watch a film in the TL that they have seen before in their first language with no subtitles; watch a movie they haven’t seen before in the TL with subtitles; or watch a film in the TL that they have seen before with

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

73

subtitles. These various combinations of novelty or familiarity and the presence or absence of written support provide different possible affordances for our learners.

5.4 Reflections A key component of audiolingual programs was the language lab, typically a large room equipped with rows of linked, partitioned seats and audio headsets. All the seats faced forward, but the desks were surrounded on the sides (left, forward, and right) with wooden or plastic barriers stretching three feet above the desk, presumably to help the students focus and not be distracted by other learners. As Derwing and Munro (2015) point out, “early labs used multi-track tape systems so that learners could hear model speakers and then record, play-back, and re-record their own voices. The instructor could monitor learners’ performance and provide intervention” (p. 23). At least once a week, we language students would spend an hour listening to audio-recorded drills and repeating decontextualized sentences over and over. The process was mind-numbing, mechanical, and deadly dull. For the most part, there was no story, no human interest—just sentences to repeat, whether or not we understood what they meant. The only thing that kept me awake was the teacher (or the lab assistant), who sat at a raised platform at the front of the room and operated a massive tape-playing console, listening to our individual efforts to utter the modeled sentences correctly. That person would monitor our output and immediately correct any errors we made. There was no lesson, only the model utterances, our repetitions, and the subsequent possible corrections. Honestly, it was a bit creepy. Big Brother was listening to us. We students never knew when we would be singled out for correction—only that we were constantly being monitored. “I hate the language lab!” I remember writing this sentence in a journal I kept as a French student. After all those boring hours I spent listening and repeating, I only specifically remember one thing I learned in the language lab: the French word ceinture, which means belt or seatbelt. Here’s how it happened. I was taking a test in a French class when I was a doctoral student. I was stuck on this word, which appeared in a reading passage. I was trying to use context clues to help me determine the meaning, but that wasn’t helping. Suddenly, I realized that I did know the meaning. From that moment on, the rest of the passage made sense and I finished the test. Afterwards I wondered about how I knew the meaning of ceinture. I hadn’t thought of the Spanish or English cognates (cinturón and cinch, respectively). I only realized that connection after recalling the meaning of ceinture. But how did I know it? Sometime later I remembered. The word ceinture had occurred in a listening passage I had heard in the language lab at least three years earlier. That particular lab activity involved a story of someone flying on Air France, greeting his seatmate, and listening to the flight attendant’s safety announcement, including the admonishment to fasten all seatbelts. That particular audio story was interesting because the various characters had different voices and there were sound effects (jet engines revving, seatbelts clicking). Also, I suppose that as a frequent traveller I could relate to that context. I readily admit that I may have learned other things in the language lab (e.g., about grammar or correct pronunciation), but that one French word is the only thing I actually remember having learned. It is also noteworthy that I learned that word in the only language lab session I remember as being interesting.

74

Teaching Listening and Speaking

As noted above, in the mid-1970s, there was a sea change in terms of language teaching methods. The Audiolingual Method soon fell into disfavor and, as a result, many language labs were repurposed. Field (2008) describes the situation in this way: Many of the routine drilling activities associated with language laboratories were discontinued in the 1970s as early behaviourist views of language learning became discredited. But the disused labs found a new life in the following decade as centres where learners could practice listening independently. The labs, in turn, have now been supplemented by computer facilities which enable learners to download listening material from the Internet. (p. 48)

Some language labs were converted into classrooms or self-access centers—facilities where learners could work with materials to study on their own or with classmates. What a huge difference between self-access learning centers and the language labs of yesteryear! Picture this context: There is a spacious area divided into study regions. Colorful posters adorn the walls. One octagonal station contains eight desktop computers, where students can access language learning materials. Headsets allow them to listen to various programs without disturbing other people. There are shelves of reference books (e.g., on English grammar and vocabulary) that students can consult, as well as paper copies of handouts and worksheets they can use. In another corner there are comfortable chairs and good lighting for reading any of the novels, short stories, history books, biographies, and magazines housed in this area. Finally, across a hall there are three glass-enclosed rooms for watching movies or television programs. Along another wall, tables are arrayed below windows where individuals or small groups can do their language homework. Tutors are available to help as needed. The paragraph above describes some self-access centers I visited at universities in Hong Kong. My own students at the Chinese University were required to spend an hour a week in the self-access center there, but some enjoyed it so much they spent many more hours there, either studying, doing projects, or just watching English movies with their friends. As you can imagine, the learning climate in selfaccess centers is very different from that of the strictly partitioned, methodologically rigid, and highly monitored language labs of the audiolingual era. The kind of individual work and interaction that can be pursued in self-access contexts is consistent with interactionist and sociocultural views of language learning. Of course, few language teaching programs will have the funding to set up such elaborate and well-equipped centers, but as teachers we can encourage our students to seek out authentic listening materials and discuss them with other people.

5.5 Challenges One of the most challenging listening processes faced by L2 speakers is drawing inferences from spoken texts. Rost (2016) notes that listeners must “draw relevant inferences repeatedly before comprehension can continue” (p. 56). Inferencing is defined as “filling in missing parts of a text or adding reasoning processes to make sense of a text” (p. 288). Another definition says that inferences are “connections between sentences or background knowledge which a listener has to supply because the speaker has not mentioned it explicitly” (Field, 2008, p. 347). Inferencing is especially challenging if it must be done in real-time listening contexts (as opposed to listening to recordings, which can be replayed).

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

75

For more advanced adult learners, some TL songs can be used for practice in drawing inferences. For example, I have used the Jackson Brown song “Ready or Not” as the basis of a listening activity about inferencing for university students. Its lyrics tell the story of an unplanned pregnancy, but pregnancy is never actually alluded to until quite near the end of the song. Instead, the male singer says of his girlfriend: “My baby’s feelin’ funny in the morning” and “her waistline seems to be expanding though she doesn’t feel like eating a thing.” In this kind of listening, learners must first understand the individual words (decoding) and formulaic expressions (“feelin’ funny”), and then understand their implications (meaning building) as the evidence for a particular interpretation either continues to mount or is not supported.

5.6 Concluding Comments We began this chapter by seeing how decoding and meaning building work together to promote listening comprehension. Decoding works with the elements of spoken input while meaning building also involves interpreting suprasegmentals and information contributed by contextual factors. Comprehending spoken texts in non-reciprocal contexts also involves activating our formal and content schemata. We learned about five types of listening and about some strategies learners can use to promote the development of their L2 listening skills. In the Reflections section, we contrasted the traditional language laboratory set-up with the more modern context of self-access centers. The Practical Activities section discussed the use of authentic material, including songs, television programs, and films. In the Challenges section of this chapter, we briefly considered the difficulties learners encounter in trying to draw inferences in a new language. Many of these issues will arise again in Chapters 6 and 7, when we learn about monologic L2 speaking and L2 interaction, respectively.

  Discussion Questions 1 Think about a time when you were learning a new language and hadn’t yet reached the intermediate level. What were the challenges you faced in non-interactive L2 listening—for instance, when trying to understand movies or television programs, or when listening to songs, news broadcasts, podcasts, or radio programs? 2 When you have been listening in a new language, was there a time when understanding the text was influenced by either your content schemata or formal schemata or both? If so, what were the circumstances? What were the outcomes? 3 Think of a time when you were listening to information in a language in which you were not fully proficient. Were you aware of using top-down and/or bottom-up processing? If so, what was the outcome? 4 Have you ever learned anything in a new language by listening to and/or singing TL songs? If so, what was the source of the input and what did you learn? 5 Do you currently listen to news, lectures, or radio programs in your TL? If so, what are the challenges and benefits of doing so? 6 Do you watch films or television programs in your TL? What kinds of films or television programs do you choose? What do you learn in the process? Share your responses to these questions with a classmate or colleague.

76

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Thinking about your (future) students, choose a TL song you could use as the basis of a listening activity. Why would you choose that song? What would the learners do with the song lyrics? 2 Select a TL film or a television program that would be appropriate to show to your (future) students. What content would you choose and why? What would be your goal(s) for the lesson? What activities would you have your students do with that input? Again, draft the goals of a lesson plan using the video as the input to the learners. 3 Think about times when you have been successful and unsuccessful listening to your SL or FL in non-interactive contexts. Consider both in-class and out-of-class experiences. Try to note an example in each quadrant in the chart below. In-class Listening

Out-of-class Listening

Good Experience

Bad Experience

4 Looking at the data you recorded in the chart above, what contextual features characterize your good experiences? What features characterize your bad experiences? Compare your ideas with those of a classmate or colleague. 5 Think about the language proficiency and goals of the students you teach (or hope to teach). What sorts of authentic listening materials would be of interest to and appropriate for them? That is, by what criteria would you select listening texts for your (future) students? List the most important factors that would influence your choices. 6 Locate at least two audio recordings of spoken language that would meet the criteria you identify. What would you do with those particular texts in a language lesson? What would you want your students to do with those texts? Draft the goals of a lesson plan that would utilize at least one of the texts. 7 What can learners gain by viewing TL films with or without subtitles visible? What can they learn in a first or second viewing of the same film or video? Try to write at least one comment in each box below. With Subtitles First Viewing

Second Viewing

Without Subtitles

Teaching Listening in an SL or FL

77

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●●

Field’s (2008) book, Listening in the Language Classroom, provides a good review of both teaching concerns and theoretical issues. Rost’s (2016) book, Teaching and Researching Listening, is somewhat more technical than Field’s book, but it also provides more detailed information about listening in L2 contexts. Tips for Teaching Listening: A Practical Approach (Richards & Burns, 2012) is an excellent resource for language teachers. It includes chapters on listening skills and strategies, the phases of listening lessons, planning a listening course, and assessing listening skills. It also contains a CD and several pages of sample plans to use in listening classes.

  Technological Tools ●●

●●

●●

Please visit the TIRF website to download reference lists on authentic materials, autonomy and agency, using movies and songs in language learning, listening in L2 contexts, self-efficacy, and schema theory. There are now thousands of oral texts available to us and our students on the internet. Movies, songs, television programing, lectures, debates, theatrical performances, and interviews are all potential resources we can use to promote learners’ listening development in many different languages. TED Talks have an excellent website with brief presentations on many different topics.

78

Chapter 6 Teaching Speaking in a Second or Foreign Language

6.1 Introduction Being able to speak in a new language is incredibly powerful and rewarding. Lazaraton (2014) noted that “overwhelmingly the question put to us is ‘How many languages do you speak?’ In fact, speaking is considered by many to be the fundamental skill in second language (L2) learning” (p. 106; italics in the original). Speaking in an SL or FL can be very challenging. As we saw in Chapter 1, it involves the simultaneous deployment of linguistic systems at several levels: phonemes, morphemes, the lexicon, syntax, and discourse. In addition, speech is frequently interactive. That is, a person’s utterances in conversation and many other forms of oral communication are spontaneous and are contingent upon the verbal contributions of his or her interlocutor(s). Hence, successful interactive speech—an issue we will explore in more detail in Chapter 7—usually depends upon having understood what our interlocutors say before we can respond appropriately. This condition applies whether the speech event is transactional, interactional, or ludic. In this chapter we will focus on speaking in non-interactive or minimally interactive contexts. These situations include brief productions, like leaving a telephone message on an answering machine, or more extended monologues, such as giving a presentation to an audience.

Guiding Questions 1 What is spoken grammar? Why is this concept important in language learning and teaching? 2 What are the stages of speech production? 3 What are the types of anxiety that influence language learners? 4 What is willingness to communicate? Why is it important for language learners to be willing to communicate?

6.2 What We Know In 1991, Nunan categorized spoken texts as primarily being either monologues or dialogues. He viewed monologues as being predominantly planned or unplanned (though this factor is surely a continuum rather than a dichotomy). Also, while the term dialogues suggests interaction between two people, here the term refers to non-monologic communication (i.e., speech among two or more people).

80

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Dialogic discourse is seen as either transactional, interpersonal, or ludic (see Chapter 1). Transactional communication involves “the transfer of information and the getting of goods and services” (Nunan, 1991, p. 6). For instance, making an appointment, getting help from a plumber, buying a bus ticket, and asking questions about a prescription are all examples of transactional communication. In contrast, interactional language (also called interpersonal language) is used “to maintain social relationships” (p. 6). Interpersonal speaking can be divided into interaction with familiar and unfamiliar others (again, a continuum rather than a dichotomy). As we learned in Chapter 1, ludic language is playful and entertaining. It includes joking, banter, riddling, and word play.

6.2.1 More about Spoken Grammar It is important for language teachers to understand the characteristics of spoken grammar because our students must be able to understand these forms as listeners and produce them as speakers. Spoken grammar is defined by McCarthy and O’Keefe (2014) as “the grammar we find in regular and repeated use by the majority of native and expert speakers of a language in the majority of their spoken interactions” (p. 272). Research has shown that spoken grammar differs from written grammar— especially if the texts are written in a formal register. Register is defined as “a speech variety used by a particular group of people, usually sharing the same occupation or the same interests” (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985, p. 242). It can also refer to levels of formality. Indeed, there are many differences between spoken and written texts. Teachers should realize that spoken grammar “contains language that would be considered ungrammatical (or at least inappropriate in terms of register) in writing” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 108). These features include the elliptical forms, such as “Hafta run,” and clipped forms like fridge for refrigerator. These examples illustrate spoken grammar forms in English, but it is probably safe to speculate that all spoken languages use forms that are not isomorphic with the “cleaner” forms depicted in formal written discourse or more formal types of spoken discourse. Speaking often happens in real time—meaning that oral messages are usually not preserved over time, while writing is typically preserved, either digitally or in print. Of course, these days we can use technology to record speech, but we must still be cognizant of the time constraints involved in speaking and the effects most natural face-to-face speaking contexts exert on speech production. Thornbury (2012) notes that spoken language characteristics “are the audible effects of the demands of real-time production. These include the use of hesitations (um, uh), repeats, false starts, incomplete utterances, and syntactic blends” (p. 200). The table below provides a review of the contrasts between spoken language and written language that were introduced in Chapter 1 (van Lier, 1995, p. 88). Given this comparison of writing and speech, you can see why FL learners whose exposure to the language occurs largely or entirely in the classroom, and is mostly based on textbooks, often sound bookish or stilted when they try to speak the TL in real-life situations.

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

81

Spoken Language

Written Language

Auditory

Visual

Temporary; immediate reception

Permanent; delayed reception

Prosody (rhythm, stress, intonation)

Punctuation

Immediate feedback

Delayed or no feedback

A variety of attention and boundary signals (including kinesic ones)

Attention boundaries, pointers, etc. limited to verbal devices

Planning and editing limited by channel

Unlimited planning, editing, revision

Lexically sparse

Lexically dense

For decades, in language courses, we have all learned (and as teachers have taught) about sentences. McCarthy and O’Keefe (2014) say that the sentence is “the most basic unit of grammar” (p. 273). There are many reasons for focusing on sentences, including the history of language teaching and the early methodological emphasis on reading TL literature; however, we must keep in mind the differences between sentences and utterances. Traditionally, language teachers have responded to and often corrected students’ spoken utterances using the rules and expectations of sentences and written discourse. The written language model typically involves sentences with subjects and tensed verbs. (The exception in English is imperative structures, such as “Read this!,” where the subject is implicit.) When students responded to questions only with prepositional phrases, noun phrases, or verb phrases, teachers would often ask for complete sentences. As Lazaraton (2014) points out, however: “We do not speak in sentences, but in phrasal chains that demonstrate the clustering of words and phrases” (p. 108). For instance, in response to the question: “Where are you going?” a person might respond with “to the store” or even just “the store.” Yet language teachers often expect learners to say: “I am going to the store.” Thornbury and Slade (2006) ask what language students must know about grammar to be competent in communication. Their response is: “What they probably don’t need to know is a lot of formal grammar” like that which is often found in published teaching materials (p. 100; italics in the original). This point is related to the concept of authenticity, which we encountered in Chapter 5 in our discussion of L2 listening. Printed representations of speech can be just as authentic or inauthentic as recorded spoken texts. As Lazaraton (2014) has noted: “The act of speaking is staggeringly complex” (p. 106). She explains that the “characteristics of speaking lead to this complexity. These include clustering (i.e., speech is segmented into thought groups rather than single words, and even single words may be contracted)” (p. 106). Other characteristics are “hesitation markers and pausing; colloquial language, including slang and idioms; and suprasegmental features including stress, rhythm, and intonation” (p. 106). So as you can see, speaking effectively in a new language is far more demanding than knowing grammar rules and having a broad vocabulary.

82

Teaching Listening and Speaking

It has only been in recent years that linguists have actively investigated the grammar of spoken language. We have learned a great deal about it through the examination of corpora: “collections of written and spoken texts, often consisting of tens or hundreds of millions of running words, stored on computers” (McCarthy & O’Keefe, 2014, p. 272). Corpora consist of millions of words. They can be searched to determine “exactly what words or patterns of grammar the speakers and writers use most frequently (or indeed, least frequently)” (p. 272). For example, they can be used to determine the frequency of structures and individual words, as well as collocations—words that frequently go together. Examples in English include bread and butter, invitation to, and forever more.

6.2.2 Phases of Speech Production In a review of research on the psycholinguistic procedures involved in speaking, Goh and Burns (2012) describe three stages of speech production: conceptual preparation, formulation, and articulation. Each of these stages is important in language learning. Conceptual preparation is “the process by which speakers select the topic or information they wish to express” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 37). Sometimes there is time for speakers to plan what they want to convey, as in the preparation for a formal presentation. In other cases, very familiar topics or often-used speech routines (e.g., self-introductions) do not demand a great deal of new conceptual preparation. But often we must decide on the spur of the moment what it is we want to say. As we saw in Chapter 3, sometimes language learners adopt the strategy of topic avoidance when particular subjects are just too difficult to discuss in the TL. As teachers, we can help our learners prepare to share their ideas. The second phase, formulation, involves deciding how to phrase the ideas to be expressed. It includes choosing the vocabulary and grammar structures needed to convey our intended meaning. It may include decisions about how formal our utterances should be, depending on the speech situation. The formulation stage is “the process by which ideas that exist in the speaker’s mind during conceptual preparation are mapped on to specific words in the speaker’s mental lexicon and strung together” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 37). In the formulation stage, learners must work with both their knowledge of TL grammar rules (the stringing together of words) and their lexical knowledge (the selection of words), as well as their understanding of register. The third stage is articulation—the actual physical production of sounds in the TL. For native speakers or competent non-native speakers, this process typically causes little difficulty. But for learners who have not already (nearly) mastered the new sound system, articulation can be very challenging indeed, since it involves producing both the necessary segmental and suprasegmental phonemes, mapped on to the selected words in the desired order, in real time and in a way that will be understood by people who are listening.

6.2.3 Willingness to Communicate When you are learning a new language, do you choose to engage with others in that language? This question raises the issue of whether or not people are willing to speak in a new language: “When presented with an opportunity to use their second language (L2), some people choose to speak up and others remain silent” (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 564). This phenomenon is known as willingness to

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

83

communicate (WTC), which is defined as “the probability of speaking when free to do so” (p. 564). MacIntyre (2007) points out that WTC is both “an individual difference factor facilitating L2 acquisition” and “a nonlinguistic outcome of the language learning process” (p. 564). MacIntyre elaborated on this definition when he stated that WTC is “the probability of initiating communication given choice and opportunity” (p. 567; emphasis added). Learners’ WTC may be very important in the development of L2 listening and speaking skills. As we saw in Chapter 4, language acquisition seems to be fueled by the negotiation for meaning, which can result in comprehensible input. Through the use of comprehension checks, clarification requests, and confirmation checks, learners can make themselves understood and can come to comprehend the speech they hear. By choosing to speak in the TL, they can also benefit from generating output, through the noticing-triggering function, hypothesis testing, and the metalinguistic (or reflective) function (Swain, 2005). In terms of sociocultural theory, choosing to engage in communication can lead to opportunities for building collaborative dialogues. For all these reasons, as teachers we should encourage our students to develop their WTC. WTC may be related to language anxiety. Learners who experience such anxiety are probably less likely to initiate L2 communication than less anxious students. We will consider various types of anxiety in the Challenges section of this chapter.

6.2.4 Vocabulary in Spoken Language As noted above, deciding on and retrieving vocabulary items from the stored lexicon is an important part of the formulation phase of speech production (Goh & Burns, 2012). McCarthy (1999) suggests that a core vocabulary for speaking should include—along with basic, high-frequency nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs—common items such as discourse markers, deictic expressions, and language expressing attitude and appraisal. A deictic expression is “a word or phrase which directly relates an utterance to a time, place, or person” (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985, p. 75), such as this, that, here, there, now, and then. Thornbury (2012) adds that “a serviceable core vocabulary will also include fixed and semifixed, multiword phrases, also known as formulaic language” (p. 200). The basic vocabulary and formulaic expressions language learners need are at least partly dependent on those learners’ contexts. For instance, as a person who travels frequently but is not a proficient speaker of any language other than English, I find I need certain phrases, no matter what the language of my host country may be. A few of the most helpful are: “Please can you help me?” and “Am I in the right place?” Also very useful are: “Please speak more slowly” and “It’s delicious.” But we cannot assume that these are the same expressions that newly resettled immigrants or refugees would need in negotiating health care, talking to their children’s teachers, or trying to get their landlords to deal with problems in their apartments.

6.2.4.1 Formulaic Language Formulaic language is indeed important in language learning. This term is defined as: [A] sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is, stored or retrieved whole, from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar. (Wray & Perkins, 2000, p. 1)

84

Teaching Listening and Speaking

In fact, McCarthy and O’Keefe (2014) say: “It is now widely accepted that much of our language output comes in ready-made chunks, mostly consisting of between two and four to five words” (p. 275). Chunks are “fixed and semi-fixed multiword phrases” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 62), which are important in language learning: Once learners begin to speak, they tend to use formulaic expressions for conversational interaction and acquire basic vocabulary. Most case studies report that grammatical structures used in these early stages are “unanalyzed,” that is, they cannot be used to produce new utterances. Rather, they are acquired as whole chunks, as if they were one word. (van Lier, 2005, p. 200)

For example, as van Lier (2005) notes, children and pre-literate learners of English may acquire the expression “I dunno” and realize only later that it is a casual spoken representation of “I don’t know”— and that don’t itself is a contraction of the full form do not. Other examples in English include hafta, wanna, and gonna.

6.2.4.2 Discourse Markers Discourse markers are an important part of spoken languages. They are phrases or lexical items that “show how what is being said is connected to what has already been said, either within the speaker’s turn or across speaker turns” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 57). For this reason, discourse markers often appear at the beginning of a particular speaker’s turn, or as sign-posting for listeners in monologues. In fact, several discourse markers serve to help listeners understand what is coming next in the speech stream. Goh and Burns (2012) give these examples: “on top of that, on the other hand, to summarize, and to conclude” (p. 62; italics in the original). Lazaraton (2014) asserts that “rather than being peripheral to the development of speaking skills, discourse markers are of central importance” (p. 109), because their various functions help to promote communication. “Some of the discourse functions that they perform are interpersonal (e.g., helping to build solidarity), referential (e.g., making cohesive relationships), structural (organizing discourse), and cognitive (illuminating thought processes about the message itself)” (p. 109). Lazaraton adds that hesitation markers and discourse markers “are ubiquitous in spoken language and do not appear in writing, nor do they show up in many scripted dialogues presented in [language] teaching materials” (p. 108). We will explore these issues more in depth in Chapter 7, when we consider conversation and other forms of interactive communication.

6.2.5 Stages of Speaking Lessons For many years, the PPP structure often guided lesson planning. “PPP” stands for presentation, practice, and production. Thornbury (2012) has proposed three alternatives for the stages of teaching speaking: awareness-raising, appropriation activities, and autonomy. Two of these stages are directly related to Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) macrostrategies of fostering language awareness and promoting learner autonomy. In the awareness-raising stage, “learners are either presented or discover for themselves features of spoken language. A typical awareness-raising task might be to identify and classify different discourse markers in a transcript of spoken dialogue” (p. 203). Having students transcribe spoken texts can be an excellent awareness-raising process, but even analyzing prepared transcripts can be very

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

85

useful. Awareness-raising as a lesson stage differs from the presentation phase of the PPP framework in that, although awareness raising can involve the delivery of information, it also utilizes analytic activities in which the learners discover the properties of the TL for themselves instead of being told what those properties are by the teacher. The second stage, appropriation activities, includes “reading aloud, rehearsing and performing dialogues, and engaging in communicative tasks of the information-gap type—where learners gain control of targeted features” (Thornbury, 2012, pp. 203–204). It is in this stage of language lessons that students can use the TL in risk-free contexts, develop confidence, and build fluency. Appropriation activities also give learners opportunities to internalize new vocabulary items, pronunciation accuracy, and grammar structures. Finally, learners reach the autonomy stage “as independent speakers in a range of different spoken genres, by such means as discussion, debate, formal presentations, and drama-based activities” (Thornbury, 2012, pp. 203–204). In this stage learners generate original spoken texts—whether they are brief utterances, stretches of unrehearsed discourse, or prepared speeches. We should note that these stages are not tightly compartmentalized. For instance, awareness-raising can occur in the other two stages. Thinking of the stages as guiding concepts, however, can help us understand our learners’ developmental stages and plan our lessons.

6.3 Practical Activities There are many ways we can support our learners in the development of their L2 speaking skills. In this section, we will consider using drama-based activities in teaching speaking before turning to the uses of pictures to promote L2 speaking. Next we will look at various types of monologic presentations.

6.3.1 Using Drama to Teach Speaking Many people have written about the benefits of using drama in language classes. (See, for example, Black, 2016; Boudreault, 2010; Cannon, 2017; Fonio, 2012; Galante & Thomson, 2017; Park, 2015.) By drama, I am referring specifically to the oral delivery of prepared written scripts (rather than improvisation). Such presentations are not simply oral readings. Instead, drama involves actions with objects, nonverbal behavior, and conveying emotion and personality by temporarily becoming the characters we are portraying. So for the moment, I am not addressing unscripted impromptu performances. Instead here we will focus on using prepared scripts written in the TL, whether the learners are reading aloud or reciting memorized lines. As they do so, their classmates have opportunities to listen to TL speech. Many language textbooks typically include dialogues: written conversations (not transcripts of actual conversations) that include the vocabulary items and grammar structures introduced in the chapter. Students are typically expected to read the dialogue aloud or even to memorize the lines and recite them in class. There was probably some value in this practice, but one problem was that the scripted textbook dialogues were often very inauthentic. That is, the conversations they embodied lacked the features of actual conversations. There were no hesitations, false starts, turn overlaps, lengthy pauses,

86

Teaching Listening and Speaking

filled pauses (uhm or er), and so on. The recitation of such dialogues was primarily an opportunity to produce the vocabulary and grammar of the lesson, and perhaps to focus on correct pronunciation. So why might it be useful to have students recite scripted texts or read them aloud, whether they are simple dialogues or actual scenes from skits or theater productions? I can think of five reasons: 1 First, reciting or reading prepared lines aloud can give learners the opportunity to speak without having to figure out what they want to say or how they should say it. In other words, both the conceptual preparation and the formulation phase (Goh & Burns, 2012) are circumvented when learners speak from a prepared script. 2 Therefore, because of the fact that the grammar, the vocabulary, and the speech acts are provided by the script, the students can concentrate on their delivery of the segmental and suprasegmental phonemes. They can focus on the articulation phase, including these important pronunciation issues, which we will discuss in Chapter 10. 3 Reading from or reciting a memorized script can be a powerful awareness-raising activity. Students may encounter formulaic expressions or instances of grammar and vocabulary used to express a particular meaning in the script that they had not previously noticed in the spoken input they receive. 4 The students can also focus on facial expressions and gestures that are supportive of the message and are culturally appropriate, especially if the selected script involves interaction between two or more speakers. 5 In some contexts, using plays, skits, or role plays can give students opportunities to say things they wouldn’t normally say, but in the safe environment of the L2 classroom. For instance, in a role play of a job interview, a student can take on the role of the interviewer and pose questions to the interviewee. We should also be aware of the shortcomings of using scripted texts for speaking practice, however. As noted above, conceptual preparation and formulation are bypassed, so learners don’t get to practice those phases. In addition, dialogues in plays and other forms of scripted speech may represent conversation, but they may not be examples of authentic conversation, because real conversation is contingent and often unpredictable. Nevertheless, it has been my experience that, in preparing for drama-based activities, a great deal of genuine, spontaneous communication, including listening, does take place among the learners.

6.3.2 Using Pictures to Promote In-class Speaking Language teachers have long used pictures to teach vocabulary and grammar structures, whether the images were part of textbook-based lessons or were pictures the teachers themselves found or produced. But the productive use of pictures is not limited to vocabulary and grammar learning. Perhaps you (will) work in a context such as a modern languages department where different languages are taught. Pictures can be very useful in this situation, because they “are not limited to use with a particular language” (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). Some years ago, I wrote about using pictures to promote L2 speaking. Here I will both summarize and elaborate upon those ideas, beginning with a rationale for using pictures.

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

87

There are many reasons to incorporate photos, paintings, sketches, or cartoons in speaking activities. First, “pictures provide something to talk about. They take the focus off the learner” during oral practice (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). In my experience, some language learners feel anxious partly because other people are watching them as they try to produce TL utterances. When a student holds up a photo or refers to a slide on a projection screen, the audience is given something to look at other than the speaker. Second, pictures can “illustrate topics of interest that are not dealt with in the textbook and topics beyond the teacher’s own expertise (e.g., engineering problems, computer technology, soccer, agriculture, etc.)” (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). For example, I remember very clearly one of my Japanese students (a serious golfer) explaining the trajectory of golf shots using different golf clubs to an audience of non-golfers. The visual images he used gave us a clearer understanding of the physics principles he was explaining and helped to hold our attention. Third, photos offer “visual support for learning as they activate mental pictures which can help the second language learner remember a particular structure or vocabulary item” (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). In Chapter 5, I described an activity where learners listen to a song and hold up pictures of the vocabulary items in the lyrics. Even true beginners can benefit from the use of pictures in this way. Fourth, whether we use paper-based or digital images, “pictures are more convenient than some realia to bring into the classroom (e.g., pictures of animals, burning buildings, outdoor activities, etc.)” (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). Again, the image of the trajectory of golf balls hit with various clubs is a good example. In addition, “pictures add color and interest to writing exercises and discussions without being technologically top-heavy” (p. 57). I have taught in situations where the electric power was not dependable, so my collection of mounted magazine and calendar photos was very helpful. In addition, unlike digitized photos projected onto a screen, paper copies of photos can easily be used in group or pair activities in which students move around the room and work with different pictures. For example, “spot the difference” is a typical pair-work activity. Pairs of students are given similar but not identical cartoons or photos. Without showing one another their individual pictures, they must use the TL to identify as many differences as possible. Photos and cartoons can be used in various ways for different lessons: “They are not tied to any teaching method, class size, or proficiency level. The same photo can be used in many ways” (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). For this reason, I recommend storing photos by content, rather than by the vocabulary and/or grammar structures they could be used to teach. Furthermore, it is convenient to use pictures. Paper-based images “are easily transportable, lightweight, flat, and they are long-lasting (if mounted or laminated)” (p. 57). Digital images can be stored on a laptop or a flash drive. In this regard, “pictures are very adaptable to the technology of the teaching environment” (p. 57). For example, they can be scanned and projected in a digital slideshow presentation, posted on a bulletin board, or mounted and set in a chalk tray. In terms of pedagogical activities, pictures can “promote creative and critical thinking” (Bailey, 2005, p. 57). For example, Christina Baldarelli uses an activity based on photos of people at work. One of the tasks she posed to the students was to determine the challenges faced by the people in the photos in terms of their work. This task works well with photos of people from a range of cultures (e.g., a mahout giving an elephant a bath) or to promote creative thinking.

88

Teaching Listening and Speaking

The cost of materials is very important for most teachers. Fortunately, whether photos are paper based or digitally stored, many are free. You can use images that you or your students have produced, or—if you are careful about copyrights and for-sale images—you can benefit from the work of thousands of photographers through online photo resources. I personally like using paper photos from calendars, and have gotten many free out-of-date calendars from stationery stores. Many packaged calendars have an added benefit: In addition to the large format monthly images, the backs of the calendars often have those same twelve photos produced in a much smaller format so that prospective buyers can see the monthly photos without removing the cellophane packaging. You can distribute the small versions of the photos to individual learners and place the large images in a chalk tray or on a bulletin board. Each student can describe his or her picture based on the small copy, and the others must choose the photo being described, thus adding a listening component to the task. Finally, pictures are versatile in terms of encouraging students to talk. I once gave a workshop about using pictures in a teaching practicum class taught by a colleague. When I asked him about the students, he told me that one Japanese woman probably would not participate very much. As it turned out, I happened to have several large-format photos of Japanese weddings. When I asked the Japanese student to explain these photos for the class, she spoke clearly and confidently, which greatly surprised my colleague. This is the power of the information gap: The speaker has knowledge the listeners lack. That speaking situation is quite different from answering display questions in class, when the listeners already know the answer. Display questions are those questions that teachers ask in language classes to get students to display their knowledge of TL forms, as opposed to asking for unknown information. For example, if my Spanish teacher asks me “¿Qué hora es?” when everyone in the room can see the clock, she is probably checking to see if I can correctly tell her the time in Spanish. It is a display question: I must display my knowledge. If the teacher suddenly notices that all the students look exhausted, however, she may realize that the classroom clock has apparently stopped. At that point, if she asks the students what time it is, she really wants to know the time, so the query is no longer simply a display question: She is genuinely seeking information. Here is another example of the natural information gap based on photos. I have one calendar showing traditional Korean musical instruments and another showing typical Korean foods. Those photos have been wonderful talk starters when groups of Korean EFL teachers have visited my school for professional development and language enhancement workshops. These teachers were sometimes hesitant about speaking English but, upon seeing these photos, they were motivated to explain the significance of the various dishes and musical instruments from their home culture. This example is related to Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) point about raising cultural awareness, although in this case it was the trainer’s awareness that was being raised by the participants. One last benefit of pictures is for students to tell others about their home countries. In fact, depending on your learners’ ages, location, and proficiency levels, you can create an in-class activity, or even a longer-term project, in which your students prepare a presentation to tell their classmates about their home country, region, city, or neighborhood. We will return to this idea in Chapter 8, when we consider project-based learning and teaching.

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

89

6.3.3 Giving Presentations An important speech event for intermediate and advanced speakers, especially in academic and professional contexts, is giving oral presentations. Presentations are examples of what Goh and Burns (2012) call monologic tasks: “those that require the learner to produce pieces of extended discourse individually” (p. 202). Doing so in a new language can be even more intimidating than giving a speech in our native tongue. In general, public speaking as a monologue can be categorized in one of three ways. It can be a formal speech read aloud from a fully prepared text. Another approach, often referred to as extemporaneous speaking, involves preparation but the delivery doesn’t involve reading a text aloud (although the speaker may talk from notes). The third form, impromptu speaking, involves no preparation whatsoever. Impromptu speaking provides students “more actual practice with speaking the language, but it also compels them to think, and speak, on their feet without the benefit of notes or memorization” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 114). In other words, impromptu presentations involve all three stages of speech production: conceptual preparation, formulation, and articulation (Goh & Burns, 2012). In preparing extemporaneous speeches, students can work individually or with others. “The benefits of students working in pairs or groups to prepare presentations are much the same as for discussions (negotiation of meaning, interaction in an authentic context, collaborative learning, etc.)” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 113). Working together may facilitate negotiated interaction (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Oral presentations don’t necessarily have to be academic or professional, either in content or in proficiency expectations. A broad and widely applicable topic is to ask students to explain a process they know well. “For pre- or nonacademic learners, suitable topics might be how to preserve fruit or how to change the spark plugs in a car” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 114). Students in my classes have given excellent explanations about how silkworms spin silk, how to make a special food from their home country, and, as noted above, how to choose a golf club for a particular shot. Such topics provide natural information gaps because the student speakers usually know more about their personally selected topics than the members of the audience do.

6.4 Reflections A few years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Colombia to speak at an English teaching conference. As it turned out, before I went to Colombia, I had to make a trip to New York, which involved using taxis between the airport and my place of work. Upon my arrival, my taxi driver told me he was from Colombia, so I told him about my upcoming trip and asked if we could speak Spanish. He seemed delighted that I’d be visiting his home country and proceeded to tell me a great deal about Colombia (in Spanish) and to ask me about my plans while I was there. He also told me that Colombian Spanish is the purest form of Spanish in the Western Hemisphere. In the process of this brief conversation, he asked me several questions, so I had the opportunity to respond in Spanish, in addition to asking him questions and listening to him. On the return trip from the hotel to the airport, the next taxi driver was Colombian as well, and I also asked him if we could speak Spanish so I could practice. Our conversation was quite similar to the

90

Teaching Listening and Speaking

previous one. He asked where I had learned Spanish, why I was going to Colombia, what parts of the country I would be able to see, and so on. He even told me that people in Colombia speak “la forma de Español mas pura.” Each of these Spanish conversations lasted only about fifteen or twenty minutes. It wasn’t really necessary to have these conversations at all, let alone to speak in Spanish. If information about Colombia was the key issue, these exchanges could have occurred in English. The two drivers’ English proficiency far exceeded my Spanish proficiency. So why did I engage in these Spanish conversations and what did I gain from them? Here are some thoughts: 1 I chose to speak Spanish because my upcoming trip to Colombia was imminent and I felt I needed every possible opportunity to practice. 2 There was very little or no possible repercussion or threat of embarrassment in speaking with these drivers. It was very unlikely I’d ever see them again. 3 We had a brief, private, low-stakes context in which to talk. Nothing was riding on my communicative success or ineptitude. 4 Assuming the drivers might be hoping for good tips, there’d be no point in them belittling me or making me feel stupid. Besides, they both seemed eager to tell me about Colombia. These two incidents are examples of dialogic speech, but I include them here because they illustrate the concept of WTC. Did I learn any Spanish by engaging in these two brief conversations? I don’t know— probably not—however, I felt very fortunate to have been able to speak to two Colombians before going to Colombia. Our simple conversations added to my confidence.

6.5 Challenges Since at least the late 1970s, language teachers and applied linguists have been concerned with learners experiencing anxiety when they are trying to use a new language. Working with concepts from psychology and later from SLA research, we now understand the following relevant issues. To begin with, some people are generally anxious, no matter what the context may be. This characteristic is referred to as trait anxiety. It is a relatively stable personality characteristic. In contrast, state anxiety is temporary. With state anxiety, people experience “feelings of worry, apprehension, nervousness, and tension” (Young, 1986, p. 441); however, state anxiety is not a prevalent personality trait. Other people only become anxious in particular situations. Situation-specific anxiety is “defined over time within a situation” (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 565), such as during language lessons. Language classroom anxiety is an example of this category. MacIntyre (2007) asserts that “situation-specific measures of language anxiety … are quite reliably, negatively related to a wide variety of measures of L2 performance” (p. 565). In other words, language learners who do poorly on L2 tasks can become anxious. And conversely, being anxious may contribute to learners’ poor performance (Bailey, 1983). Situation-specific anxiety often occurs where people are being evaluated, if the situation is unfamiliar, if it is ambiguous, if they feel conspicuous, and/or if they have had a previous anxiety-provoking experience in that context. For example, public speaking can induce strong anxiety responses.

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

91

Thus we can distinguish among at last three different types of anxiety: (1) trait anxiety in people who are frequently anxious; (2) state anxiety in people who experience temporary nervousness, for some reason; and (3) situation-specific anxiety, which is triggered by a particular context, including speaking in a new language. Another variable is the intensity and effect of anxiety. Facilitating anxiety motivates a person to prepare, to try harder, and to succeed. Facilitating anxiety is defined as “an increase in drive level which results in improved performance, while debilitating anxiety is an increase in arousal or drive level which leads to poor performance” (Young, 1986, p. 440). Often debilitating anxiety is so severe that the speaker cannot perform at his or her best (Scovel, 1991). MacIntyre (2007) notes the discomfort of someone who wishes to speak but is too anxious to do so. The result can be a “conflicted moment when high motivation for language learning propels a learner toward communication but high anxiety arousal restrains his or her action” (p. 567). Thus both speaking and listening are affected by the presence or absence of WTC.

6.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter, we have examined issues related to monologic (or largely monologic) L2 speaking. These topics included differences between spoken and written language, vocabulary in spoken language (including formulaic speech and discourse markers), the phases of speech production, and the stages of speaking lessons, as well as the concept of WTC. In the Practical Activities section, we examined the value of drama-based activities for teaching speaking and the use of pictures to promote speaking in classroom activities. We then turned to issues related to giving oral presentations before considering different types of anxiety in the context of L2 speaking. In Chapter 7 we will consider L2 speaking and listening in interactive contexts.

  Discussion Questions 1 As a language student, have you ever felt uneasy or even anxious about trying to speak in the TL during a language lesson? If so, what were the circumstances? What did you do? 2 What about in out-of-class contexts? Have you experienced anxiety in speaking and/or listening in your non-native language(s) outside of language lessons? If so, what happened? 3 Have you ever given a speech in a new language? If so, what was the context? How did you prepare? What was the result? 4 What can you do to reduce your anxiety if you experience FL anxiety as a student in a language lesson or as a learner acquiring a new language in a naturalistic context? 5 Are you typically willing to communicate in L2 contexts? That is, given the option not to interact in the TL, do you choose to do so? If so, think of an example and share it with a classmate or colleague. If not, what factors keep you from speaking in your new language?

92

Teaching Listening and Speaking

6 As a language teacher, have you ever been aware of your students feeling anxious during speaking lessons? If so, what was the context? How did you realize that someone was anxious? What did you do in that situation? 7 Based on your own experiences, readings, and discussions, how can we help our learners feel more comfortable and confident in speaking their new language, especially in monologic situations? Think of two or three specific actions you could take.

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Think about times when you have been successful and unsuccessful in monologic speaking in your SL or FL, including both in-class and out-of-class experiences. Try to recall an example for each quadrant in the chart below and make a note in each cell. In-class Speaking

Out-of-class Speaking

Best Experience

Worst Experience

2 What features characterize your best and worst monologic speaking experiences? Compare your ideas with those of your classmate(s) or colleague(s). 3 Lazaraton (2014) notes that L2 speaking classes are often taught with textbooks. She says it is important “that teachers and textbook-selection committees take a close critical look at these materials, since not all of them live up to their claims about what they promote or teach in terms of language content, teaching methodology, and task or textual authenticity” (p. 112). Find a textbook on your teaching language for language learners that focuses on speaking. Would that textbook be useful for your (future) students? Why or why not? What are its strengths and its shortcomings? 4 Audio-record a brief stretch of monologic spoken language—for example, someone telling a story—preferably an unrehearsed story. Transcribe about five minutes of the talk without cleaning up the utterances. That is, don’t eliminate the hesitation markers, the vocalized fillers, etc. Make a list of the features of spoken grammar that occur in the data you transcribed. 5 Look at a speaking textbook or unit for your teaching language. Do the language samples it contains seem formal or natural? Find an example to share.

Teaching Speaking in an SL or FL

93

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach by Goh and Burns (2012) is a wonderful resource for language teachers. It is organized in four main sections: (1) speaking processes and skills; (2) spoken discourse; (3) designs and approaches; and (4) classroom practices and processes. The volume edited by Horwitz and Young (1991) is an excellent collection of fourteen research reports. The chapter by Campbell and Ortiz (1991) provides ideas for helping our students combat anxiety. Bailey and Krishnan (2015) describe speaking activities used by language teachers in under-resourced areas of the world, including Baldarelli’s use of pictures. For several practical ideas about teaching speaking, please see Insights on Teaching Speaking in TESOL (Stewart, 2009). It contains seventeen chapters, which cover a range of topics organized in three main sections: materials development and implementation, public speaking, and feedback and assessment. Another excellent practical resource is New Ways in Teaching Speaking (Vorholt, 2019), a collection of teaching ideas written by teachers for teachers. Each chapter starts by identifying the proficiency level(s) of the students, the aims of the activity, the amount of lesson time it is likely to take, and the resources required. My book, Practical English Language Teaching: Speaking (Bailey, 2005) was written for novice teachers and people new to the field. There are chapters about teaching speaking to beginning, intermediate, and advanced language learners.

  Technological Tools ●●

For extensive reference lists on teaching speaking, autonomy, non-native speaking teachers, corpora, language anxiety, formulaic language, drama in language teaching, and WTC, please visit the TIRF website.

●●

There are several excellent online sources for downloading free photos. I personally like Google Images.

●●

For examples of free corpora, please consult the following websites:

●●



For Chinese, the PolyU Corpus of Spoken Chinese;



For English, the British National Corpus, the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and Lextutor;



For French, the Corpus de Français Parlé au Québec and Lextutor;



For Russian, the Russian National Corpus;



For Spanish, El Corpus del Español.

In addition, Backbone Corpus Search Project has corpora of several different European languages, with the benefit that all of its data are from spoken sources.

94

Chapter 7 Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

7.1 Introduction In this chapter we will consider the particular benefits and challenges of interacting with other people in a new language. As we saw in Chapters 5 and 6, there are some situations in which we speak largely without listening, and some where we listen without speaking; however, much of the time, speaking and listening occur together. Whether such events are informal (e.g., casual conversations), relatively formal (seminars), or highly structured (debates), in order to speak effectively during interactive events we must understand the speech of our interlocutor(s). In this chapter we will explore the intricacies of speaking and listening interactively and focus on helping learners develop the skills they need for interacting in L2 contexts.

Guiding Questions 1 What is interaction? 2 What is conversation? How does it differ from interaction? 3 What are the characteristics of conversational speech? 4 What is unequal power discourse?

7.2 What We Know As we saw in Chapters 1 and 6, speaking successfully in a new language involves deploying multiple linguistic subsystems. In addition, “because speech almost always involves interaction with at least one other speaker, these multiple demands are in place at the same time: monitoring and understanding the other speaker(s), thinking about one’s own contribution, producing that contribution, monitoring its effect, and so on” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 106). Interaction is “the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people” (Brown & Lee, 2015, p. 259). Thornbury and Slade (2006) define interactivity as: [W]hat roles speakers take on, how they position other interactants into particular roles, how turntaking and topic change occur in contexts where one person is not in control (as, for example, in an interview), and the different kinds of feedback strategies that participants use. (p. 113)

96

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Managing interaction during conversations, according to Goh and Burns (2012), includes distributing turns, starting and ending conversations, and introducing new topics. The norms for appropriate interactive behavior differ somewhat from one culture to another; however, it is probably safe to say that all cultures (and subcultures) have expectations regarding how interactions should be done. Thornbury (2012) notes that “the way that interruptions and silences, for example, are typically managed in the target language culture may need to be a focus of speaking instruction” (p. 201). The activities presented in this chapter were selected to give you ideas for encouraging your learners to engage in TL interaction.

7.2.1 Conversation as a Form of Interaction While there are many different forms of oral interaction, McCarthy and O’Keefe (2014) note that the vast majority of the speaking we do consists of conversations, rather than more formal types of speech, such as lectures, sermons, or rehearsed presentations. Indeed, conversation is one of the most basic and most pervasive forms of human communication. It is a form of interaction, but not all interactions are conversations. Conversation is defined as “the informal, interactive talk between two or more people, which happens in real time, is spontaneous, has a largely interpersonal function, and in which participants share symmetrical rights” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 25). The point about “symmetrical rights” is extremely important because it is part of what distinguishes conversation from other forms of interaction, especially unequal power discourse—that is, “discourse where the social structure is one of wide power mismatch for the participants” (Hatch & Long, 1980, p. 16). For example, an attorney’s examination of a witness during a trial is a particular kind of interaction that involves questions and answers, but that speech event is not a conversation. The attorney determines what questions are asked, what topics are initiated, and when the interaction is terminated. Much research on language classroom interaction exemplifies the issue of unequal power discourse, because teachers typically have more power than students: The teacher, for example, can determine the topic(s) of conversation, and often reveals this explicitly with a statement at the beginning of a lesson (“Today we’re going to talk about …”). By and large teachers also control who speaks, when, and to whom. (Hatch & Long, 1980, p. 17)

As a result, classroom discourse is not usually conversational, although in the Reflections section of Chapter 1 we saw how a lesson on the English present perfect became a conversation about weird things that happen in Los Angeles. Conversations consist of turns taken by the various interlocutors (the people who are speaking and listening). Turns are constructed by the interlocutors, or in van Lier’s (1989) terms, turns are contingent: What one person says depends (at least in part) on the content and nature of the preceding turn(s). Evidence for this claim can be found in the expressions people use to signal a change of topic when the contingency is discontinued. In English, for example, we say things like “oh, by the way” and “that reminds me” to introduce a topic change.

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

97

7.2.2 Characteristics of Conversation What are the characteristics of conversation? According to Thornbury and Slade (2006), spoken conversation occurs in real time—that is, it is a synchronous speech event. (Here I am not considering asynchronous emails as spoken conversations, though they are a very important form of communication.) Conversation is spontaneous in nature (i.e., it is not heavily rehearsed or memorized), although we may think in advance about what we want to say in an upcoming conversation. It is largely interpersonal and/or ludic, rather than transactional, although conversations can occur during transactional speech. Conversation is “the kind of speech that happens informally, symmetrically, and for the purposes of establishing and maintaining social ties” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 25). As we saw in Chapter 6, a prevalent characteristic of conversations is the regular use of deictics: lexical items that indicate “features of the physical context, such as this, that, now, then” and so on (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 14). In face-to-face communication, these deictic words are often accompanied by gestures, such as pointing or head tilts. Another important feature of conversation is the use of ellipsis—the deletion of information that is understandable from the shared context of the interlocutors. For instance, in response to the question: “Do you like chocolate?” the response is likely to be: “Yes, I do,” just “Yes!,” “Sure!,” or “You bet!” rather than “Yes, I like chocolate.” Turn overlaps are also common in conversation. That is, one person may begin to speak before his or her interlocutor has finished a turn. Sometimes these interruptions can be actual turn bids—attempts to claim the floor. At other times, such utterances are just instances of back-channeling: signals to the speaker that his or her interlocutor is engaged in the conversation but is not attempting to claim the floor.

7.3 Practical Activities Although we all participate in conversations in our first language, “nearly all L2 students can benefit from instruction on the nature of informal conversation and practice with its fundamental features, whether they are in a classroom context or in a tutorial setting” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 114). One way to minimize the unequal power nature of classroom discourse is to use group work and pair work, during which the teacher steps back, usually without interfering, and lets the learners negotiate for meaning.

7.3.1 Group Work and Pair Work With the advent of communicative language teaching, group work and pair work became regular activities in language lessons. In many contexts, these practices are so widely used today that it’s hard to imagine a time when language lessons consisted largely of choral repetition or individual students reciting memorized dialogues or responding to display questions from the teacher. Group work and pair work promote interaction, which can lead to negotiation for meaning. As we saw in Chapter 4, the process of negotiating for meaning leads to comprehensible input at a level appropriate for the learner(s). In terms of sociocultural theory, group work and pair work can promote collaborative

98

Teaching Listening and Speaking

dialogue: “the supportive interactions that arise when learners communicate with others” (Ellis, 2005, p. 723). Swain (2005) cites research which found that “collaborative dialogues were a source of language learning” (p. 478). Thus, creating in-class contexts for learners to interact in the TL can increase their learning opportunities. Two macrostrategies (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) are pertinent here: maximizing learning opportunities and facilitating negotiated interaction. Using group work or pair work increases the students’ opportunities for talk time, but that doesn’t mean teachers should be passive. “The instructor’s role during group discussions is to monitor the activity to ensure that students are on task, that they have equal opportunities to participate, and that they are speaking in [the TL]” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 113). In addition to increased talk time, in group work and pair work learners get opportunities to use speech acts that normally fall to the teacher. It is a characteristic of unequal power discourse that the person in power can nominate topics, change topics, raise questions, and so on. When the power person (the teacher) is removed from the context, the remaining participants have more power to engage in these interactive moves. Thus, group work and pair work provide affordances to engage in speech acts that typically are executed by the teacher. (We will return to the concept of speech acts in Chapter 11.) There are several issues to consider in setting up group work and pair work activities. Issues “such as class size, mixed proficiency, and monolingual settings require that oral skills teachers develop a set of principles for pair, group, and whole-class discussions” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 112). Additional factors to consider in L2 contexts include the gender identity of students in pairs or groups. For instance, in some cultures, it is not appropriate for unmarried women to interact with men. In other cultures, such cross-gender communication is permissible, but one gender may overwhelm the other in spoken turns taken during the group’s interaction. Many factors should be considered in deciding how to constitute pairs or groups of students. In L2 contexts, with learners from a variety of mother-tongue backgrounds, “there is no one right way to group students, [but] considerations such as first language, ethnicity, proficiency level, and talkativeness may come into play” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 112). Lazaraton (2014) adds that “the first aspect of group work that the teacher must consider is whether the students have the interactional skills necessary for task completion” (p. 112). One important role is for the teacher to provide feedback to and, at times, elicit reactions from the class. This responsibility may involve reviewing answers, commenting on and consolidating ideas, or linking discussion outcomes to future class activities or assignments. For this reason, “it is important to plan for wrap-up time” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 113). The teacher must decide whether this wrap-up process happens within the groups or upon returning to whole-class interaction. There are several benefits of group work. First, and most directly relevant to our focus in this chapter, is that it promotes interaction and can lead to collaborative dialogue (Brown & Lee, 2015). Second, when it is properly managed, group work “offers an embracing affective climate,” because “each individual is not so starkly on public display” (Brown & Lee, 2015, p. 273). This point is related to our discussion of anxiety in Chapter 6. Group work “promotes learner responsibility and autonomy” (Brown & Lee, 2015, p. 273). The idea is that individual learners must take on responsible roles for achieving the group’s goals and, in doing

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

99

so, they have the opportunity to develop autonomy in ways that may not be possible in whole-class contexts. This point is related to the macrostrategy of promoting learner autonomy (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Finally, “group work is a step toward individualizing instruction” (Brown & Lee, 2015, p. 273). Students’ individual differences may be more visible in small-group interaction than in full-class discussions, because the learners have more opportunities to express themselves. Recognizing those differences can be very informative for us as teachers. For group work activities that involve complex or lengthy tasks, it can be useful to have group members take on specific roles. Lazaraton (2014) advises that “students need to self-select or be assigned clear explicit roles for these activities. Specific responsibilities such as timekeeper, note taker, and group reporter should be chosen by the students themselves” (p. 112). Determining roles and responsibilities for group members can be especially important in project-based learning and teaching, which we will explore in Chapter 8.

7.3.2 Role Plays for Promoting Interaction As we saw in Chapter 6, role plays are semi-structured spoken interactions in which two or more people often assume the personae (the roles) of other persons. Role plays can also involve the students portraying themselves but being involved in unusual situations. For instance, with adult learners, role plays can involve trying to solve a problem, such as making an accident report, booking a hotel room by telephoning, or trying to find lost luggage at an airport. One interesting challenge for language teachers is to provide opportunities for students to engage in equal power discourse in the classroom, and even to take the role of the person in power. In assigning the roles, the teacher can create contexts for relatively equal power discourse, or even for unequal power discourse in which the learner is in the position of power. For example, in a partner role play, the first student can be the employer and the second can be the job applicant. Role plays can take place between or among students or between one or more students and a teacher. The story about Henry buying coasters in Chapter 3 is an example of the latter. Role plays can be impromptu, where students are given their roles and a task with no opportunity to plan the interaction. On the other hand, “depending on the student’s level, role plays can be performed from prepared scripts, created from a set of prompts and expressions, or written using and consolidating knowledge gained from instruction or discussion of the speech act and its variations” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 114). It is important to select role-play scenarios that are relevant to your students’ interests and language needs. Role plays are “particularly suitable for practicing the sociocultural variations in speech acts, such as complimenting, requesting, and refusing” (p. 114). We will return to role plays as a testing procedure in Chapter 13, when we consider their uses in assessing interactive speaking and listening.

7.3.3 Transcribing Speech Samples You will recall from Chapter 6 that Thornbury (2012) described the awareness-raising stage of teaching speaking. That stage employs activities in which learners discover the features of spoken language, including those in interactive speech contexts. Having learners transcribe authentic TL speech samples

100

Teaching Listening and Speaking

can be very informative for us as teachers and can help raise learners’ awareness of the features of conversation. Such speech samples can be chosen by the teacher or recorded by the students themselves. Transcription is directly related to the macrostrategy of fostering language awareness (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Transcription of authentic conversations differs from taking dictation of carefully prepared and produced oral texts. “Transcription involves a faithful reproduction of what was said on paper and provides a genuine awareness of what speech is really like” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 115). By transcribing authentic samples of conversation, “students can ‘see’ speech, and they are often surprised that nearly everyone’s speech is far from perfect” (p. 115). Authentic discourse provides the audio input, and it should not be “cleaned up” in any way. The audio recording should include the hesitations, filled pauses, repetitions, and turn-overlaps of natural speech. Lazaraton (2014) notes that, while students are transcribing, they should be told “not to correct grammar or pronunciation errors, and to include the hesitation markers, false starts, and pauses that occur” (p. 115). Adelson (2019) offers the following ideas about having students transcribe recorded samples of authentic conversation. First, teachers should help learners “understand the topic of the audio beforehand, especially if it is cultural and outside the scope of the listener’s own culture” (p. 34). (This suggestion is related to our discussion of content schemata in Chapter 5.) It is also a good idea to make sure the students are familiar with the key words in the text. Adelson suggests having the class listen to the recording once so they can identify several key words. They can generate the list of key words in pairs or small groups. The next stage is to listen to the recording once more and summarize the main idea. Once the students understand the general idea of the text, the next step is for them to transcribe as much as possible. In doing so, “they will end up with some or many words that do not have much meaning. These are called filler words, such as well, like, you know, seriously, I mean, you know what I mean?, believe me, etc.” (Adelson, 2019, p. 34). In authentic conversation there are often “emotional indications such as deep breathing, giggling, chuckling, or hysterical laughter” (p. 34). Adelson (2019) suggests that we have students transcribe “these emotional actions in brackets. In this kind of transcription, students are not required to correct the grammatical problems of the speaker or clean up their unfinished thoughts” (pp. 34–35). The point of the transcription exercise is for the learners to become aware of the features of casual conversation. As a way of finishing the activity, you can provide a completed transcript. Before revealing the key, however, you can have the students compare their transcripts in pairs to see if they were able to capture all of the characteristics of the spoken text and to discuss discrepancies among their transcripts.

7.3.4 Strip Stories in Interactive Speaking and Listening Lessons The strip-story activity is based on an old procedure for helping student writers learn about the structure of a paragraph in non-fiction prose. For that purpose, typically four or five sentences were printed in a list and the students had to order the topic sentence, supporting evidence, and concluding sentence. They indicated their preferred sequence of sentences by writing a number in front of each sentence; however, in that context the activity often worked better if the teacher could give the students copies of the sentences cut into strips. That way, each student could physically manipulate the various sentences to see how they

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

101

looked as they were rearranged in various ways on a table or desk. In the process, the learners could also notice how discourse markers (as a result, in contrast, however, nevertheless, etc.) would be helpful to their readers in understanding the relationships among their sentences. But let’s change the teaching and learning context a bit. Having individual sentences of a text written on a separate slip of paper can be the basis of a very interesting speaking and listening activity that promotes awareness-raising and negotiation for meaning. Here are the steps to follow in using strip stories to promote interaction: 1 Choose or write a brief story that is connected to the content and learning goals of your course. The text should be culturally and age appropriate and should interest your learners. It should not be too difficult syntactically or lexically. 2 Print the sentences separately (that is, not arranged in paragraph format), and reproduce them on a page with ample space between the sentences. Cut the page so that each sentence is printed on its own strip of paper. 3 Scramble the strips into a random sequence and have a proficient TL speaker put them in order to pilot the activity. 4 If that person finds more than one possible sequence of the strips, you must revise the sentences so that there is only one logical sequence. 5 At the beginning of the activity, give each student in your class one sentence strip. Tell the students not to show their own sentence to anyone. If you are working with a short text (say, four or five sentences), put four or five students in a group and give each group member a sentence. 6 The next step is essential to making this a speaking and listening activity. Each learner must memorize his or her own sentence and recite it aloud. For this reason, your story should use vocabulary and grammar that your students have encountered previously. 7 As the students are memorizing their sentences, you should circulate and answer any questions they have about meaning or pronunciation. Have each person write his or her name on the strip and take it away from them. (You should retrieve the paper strips because you may need to coach individuals in the later steps of the process. You should also have a copy of the complete story with you in case you need to guide the students.) 8 The focus on interactive speaking and listening accelerates when each student recites his or her sentence aloud. The negotiation for meaning begins here as the students collaboratively try to decide the best order for the sentences, based only on what they have heard their classmates say. The listener may also ask for repetition, which can push the speakers to articulate more loudly and clearly. If this process works well, a climate of mutual engagement develops (Walqui & van Lier, 2010), as students listen carefully to one another’s utterances. 9 At this point, the students often decide to assign a possible order to each sentence. That is, in a small group, students can figure out which sentence is first, second, third, and so on. When working with longer texts, students may realize that standing up and physically arranging themselves around the classroom can be very helpful.

102

Teaching Listening and Speaking

10 When all the students agree on a single correct order for the sentences, have them recite the text aloud. Everyone in the group must agree on the final sequence. You should provide a complete version of the strip story so the students can verify their solution and enjoy a sense of accomplishment. Distributing one sentence to each learner creates a jigsaw activity. Each participant has a unique piece of information that must be shared with the others in the TL in order for the group successfully to complete the task of assembling the whole text in a proper order. The interaction that occurs as the students try to sort out the best sequence generates many opportunities to negotiate for meaning. The task of finding the optimum sequence causes the students to use speech acts such as disagreeing, hypothesizing, suggesting, and challenging. Here are a few tips to keep in mind when you are setting up this task. First, the sentences you use should be rich in discourse markers, such as in addition, furthermore, in contrast, and so on. For lower-level learners, ordinal number vocabulary is helpful (first, second, third, fourth, etc.), as are clear but simple time signals (after that, next, and finally) and conjunctions (and, but, or). Make sure that the discourse markers you choose are appropriate for the register of the text (e.g., so versus as a result to indicate causality). Depending on the pronoun system of the TL, pronominal forms are particularly good clues for the students. In languages that use pronouns indicating gender (such as he, she, or it), a pronoun in a particular sentence strip can help learners make the connection to a noun in another strip. Interpreting anaphoric and cataphoric references correctly is important in understanding spoken texts. Anaphora involves one form referring to an earlier form (e.g., “Anna was late to class because she had to take her son to school”). In this sentence, she refers to Anna. Cataphora is the connection of one form to a following form; for example, “Because she had to take her son to school, Anna was late to class.” Here, she precedes Anna but refers to her. Reconstructing strip stories can provide opportunities for learners to notice anaphoric and cataphoric references. An additional consideration is that one or more students will be late or absent when you plan to use the strip-story activity. For this reason, it is important to include a few sentences that are not essential to the logical development of the text but that do have a unique place in the text. That way, you can delete such a sentence if a student is absent or include it if a student arrives late. I usually put an asterisk at the end of the optional sentences, so that I can be sure not to distribute them at the beginning of the activity but can easily insert them as needed.

7.3.5 Using Logic Puzzles to Promote Interaction Logic puzzles consist of a set of written clues that lead to the identification of a group of people and their characteristics through the processes of matching and elimination. These puzzles are often completed for enjoyment by one person working alone, but they can be the basis of useful tasks in language lessons. You can locate logic puzzles in paperback puzzle books, or you can write your own. Logic puzzles can be used in reasoning gap activities (see Chapter 3). Here is an example of a logic puzzle for low-level students in an ESL course for non-academic adults. Using only the information given, the students must pool their knowledge to determine the name, home country, work, and number of children of each person described in the clues below.

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

103

1.  Four students have children. 2.  The first student is Mrs. Garcia. 3.  Mrs. Garcia has two sons. 4.  The second student, Mr. Jimenez, has one son. 5.  Maria Alvarez has one daughter. 6.  The fourth student has two daughters. 7.  One student works in a restaurant. 8.  Mr. Jimenez works at a department store. 9.  Maria works in a grocery store. 10.  The fourth student is a teacher’s aide. 11.  The student from Chile has two sons. 12.  The student from Mexico has one daughter. 13.  The person from Honduras has one son. 14.  The fourth student is from Panama. 15.  The teacher’s aide is Carlos Rodriguez.

The students can be given the clues all at once, or different students can be given individual clues, which they then share with their classmates. You can also dictate the clues to the class if you have time and you want to add a non-reciprocal listening element to the lesson. The first sort of input to the learners in a logic puzzle consists of the facts provided about the people in the puzzle. You can either give the students a chart, suggest they make one, or let them discover that strategy for themselves. The chart for this particular puzzle would use the person numbers as the row headings and the labels name, country, children, and job as the column headings. The procedures for the students are to share the distributed clues orally (unless you deliver the clues as a dictation) by reading their own clues aloud to their classmates or groupmates. They then compile the information provided by the clues to determine the missing information through a process of elimination. In carrying out these steps the next type of input occurs. That is, in working with the language provided by the clues in the task, the learners interact to solve the puzzle. As in the strip-story activity, likely speech acts include disagreeing, challenging, hypothesizing, and so on. Here is another logic puzzle that was designed for more advanced English language learners. To incorporate the jigsaw principle, copy these clues onto a sheet of paper, cut it into strips, and give five strips to each person in a group of three students.

1. Four students who are enrolled in an advanced language class have different career goals and different hobbies. 2. They also have different interests in sports. 3. The first person wants to be an engineer. 4. The second person loves playing tennis. 5. The person who wants to be a lawyer enjoys ice-skating.

104

Teaching Listening and Speaking

6. The student who likes to play soccer also enjoys stamp collecting. 7. The surfer wants to be a physical therapist. 8. The hobby of Person 3 is singing. 9. The person who likes surfing also enjoys painting. 10. The tennis player also enjoys playing the piano. 11. Person 4 does not want to be a teacher. 12. Person 1 does not want to be a physical therapist. 13. Person 2 does not want to be a lawyer. 14. Painting is not the hobby of the person who wants to be an engineer. 15. Teaching is the career goal of Person 2.

To make this task even more interactive you can have students solve the logic puzzle in pairs instead of in small groups. Once again, it is important that the overall context and the specific topics mentioned in the clues are relevant to the students’ interests and appropriate for their ages. In addition, the vocabulary and syntax should not be too difficult for your learners. The point here is that, in solving the logic puzzle, students will deploy vocabulary and syntactic forms they have already encountered to practice speaking interactively.

7.3.6 Using Pictures to Promote L2 Interaction In Chapter 6, we discussed some ways to use photos and other kinds of pictures to promote students’ monologic speaking. Here we will consider activities using pictures to stimulate L2 interaction.

7.3.6.1 Compare and Contrast Gather pairs of pictures that have many things in common but also have some notable differences. You must have at least enough photos or cartoons for every student to have his or her own picture. Distribute the photos so that each student has one. If there is space in your classroom for the students to move around, have all the students stand up and find the person who has a picture similar to their own without showing anyone their photos. They must find their partners by describing the picture instead of by revealing it. Having located their partner, the students will use the TL to identify at least three similarities and three differences between their pictures. Once they do so, they sit down. As we saw in Chapter 6, this activity is sometimes called “spot the difference” in published materials. There are some particular structures that are useful in this context. In English, yes/no questions fit naturally here: “Do you have” or “Does your picture have” are helpful as are the existential expressions: “There is” and “There are,” and questions such as: “Are there any …?” You can remind students of these structures or pre-teach them as needed, depending on the learners’ proficiency.

7.3.6.2 Building Collaborative Stories This activity begins with the teacher distributing a set of carefully selected photos to three to five students. Their job is to use the pictures to create a story. Each student in the group must speak about

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

105

at least one picture in telling the story. The members of the group must agree on the plot of their story, the sequence of the utterances, and who will speak about each photo. The nature of the photos suggests the plot of the story. It is important to choose photos that are age appropriate and of interest to your students. For instance, in working with intermediate to advanced adult ESL learners, I have used separate photos of a potential couple, an additional picture of someone who looks sinister or angry, something valuable (gold bars, a large jewel), a mode of transportation (a motorcycle, a speed boat, an airplane), and a mysterious or dangerous place (the edge of a cliff, an ancient temple, the top of a skyscraper, the entrance to a cave). Depending on the age, religions, and sophistication of the learners, I have also added photos of a beverage (champagne, coffee, red wine, tea, or maté) and a dangerous animal (a tiger, a cobra, a poisonous spider). You can include these last two elements initially or add them as a surprise once the groups have already planned their stories. My colleague, Colleen Maloney-Berman, taught me an interesting variation on the group storybuilding activity. Her version involves gradually adding new variables to the story, thereby increasing its complexity as the group work progresses. Here are the steps. Find pictures of four people who apparently have nothing in common. Distribute those pictures to the members of the group. Each student individually makes up a brief biography for the person whose picture he or she has. Just a few sentences are usually sufficient. For example, a picture of an elderly man elicited this description: “This is Claus. He is a widower. He goes to Central Park every day. He watches the children and sometimes he plays chess with another old man.” In the next step, each student shares the biography of the person in his or her photo with the rest of the group, so there is both a speaking and a listening component here. Then the teacher tells the students they must figure out the connections among the people in the photos. For instance, one group said: “Greta is the granddaughter of Claus. She is studying in New York to be an opera singer. She tries to visit Claus every week.” After the connections have been made, the members of the group are told to figure out what the problem or complication is among these people. For example, “Greta is very worried about Claus. He is ill and his medicine is quite expensive. Greta takes a job as a waitress so she can help pay for the medicine. Unfortunately, this job cuts into her time to study opera.” When the students have generated the problem of the story together, the penultimate step is that they must brainstorm some possible solutions to the problem. Finally, each group reports its story to the class, with members holding up their pictures as they speak. Every group member must speak and every picture must be incorporated as the story is told. The advantage of this cumulative process is that the task is scaffolded, because the subsequent steps are introduced by the teacher one at a time. As a result, the activity of building a complex, multipart, multi-author story is not as overwhelming as it might be if the entire process is unveiled at the outset. In addition, in the oral delivery of the final story, each group member takes several turns (i.e., one to introduce the person in the photo, one to explain the connections of his or her character with the other persons, one to describe the problem, and one to provide the solution). It is important to select pictures that are appropriate for your students. For example, if you are working with children, obviously you need to choose age-appropriate images, such as animals, food, other children, and so on. It is best to have more pictures than students so the learners will have some

106

Teaching Listening and Speaking

choice. The point of the activity is to get students to interact to plan their co-authored story and then to present it as a team, so the pictures should not be upsetting or distracting. Using photos to promote interaction has often led to surprising developments in the interaction based on those images. Students often try to say things for which they don’t yet have the vocabulary to express themselves. Such interactions lead to natural contexts for using communication strategies, the topic of the Reflections section of this chapter.

7.4 Reflections In Chapter 3, we learned about three categories of communication strategies: avoidance or reduction strategies, achievement or compensatory strategies, and stalling or time-gaining strategies. The achievement or compensatory communication strategies often come into play during L2 interaction, when we are trying to understand others or make ourselves understood. In this Reflections section, we will revisit communication strategies in the context of L2 interaction. This Reflections section is also related to the concept of WTC (MacIntyre, 2007). The episode begins when I arrived at a week-long job in Latin America. As I was getting settled in my hotel, I found I needed more coat hangers, but I didn’t know the Spanish vocabulary to use to get them. I asked the hotel maid, “¿Cómo se dice la cosa dónde ponemos nuestra ropa?” (What do we call the thing where we put our clothes?) She responded, “Guardaropa.” Now anyone who knows even a modicum of Spanish or other romance languages will recognize that guardaropa is a cognate of wardrobe. But being intent on getting unpacked and getting my message across, I told her, “Pues, necesito cinco más guardaropas, por favor.” (Well, I need five more wardrobes, please.) (Bailey, 2010, p. 16)

The maid looked very surprised, which told me that I had said something wrong. I decided to try a different communication strategy. I took a coat hanger from the wardrobe and asked: “Esta cosa— ¿cómo se dice?” The maid smiled and said: “Ah—gancho.” “Okay,” I responded. “Necesito cinco más ganchos, por favor.” Mission accomplished (p. 16). On another trip to a different country much later, I couldn’t recall how to ask for coat hangers, but was determined not to ask for five more wardrobes: This time, with a coat hanger in my hand, I asked the hotel maid, “¿Cómo se llama esta cosa?” “¡Percha!” she told me. That didn’t seem quite right, but it made sense: A coat hanger is something on which clothes can perch. I asked her for cinco más perchas and got what I needed. (Bailey, 2010, p. 16)

On another trip some years later, at the reception desk of another hotel in another country, I realized I might need some coat hangers, so to prepare for a likely encounter with a hotel maid I asked the English-speaking clerk, “What is the Spanish word for coat hanger?” He said: “Gancho.” Gancho? Gancho? I’d heard that word before. I tried to picture it in my mind so I could remember it and use it as needed. But for a visual learner, auditory memory is a weak ally. I should have written gancho on the palm of my hand. When the hotel maid came by, I confidently asked her for “cinco más

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

107

gauchos, por favor.” Her startled face told me clearly that, once again, I’d said the wrong thing. But think about it! After all, a “u” is nothing but an upside down “n,” and for a slightly dyslexic, left-handed, lower-intermediate Spanish speaker, the mistake is surely understandable! (Of course, the hotel maid was probably not accustomed to having guests ask for five more Argentine cowboys, when previously there had not been even one in the room). (Bailey, 2010, p. 16)

As this story illustrates, an element of being willing to communicate is taking risks in L2 interactions. Risk-taking is defined as “a situation where an individual has to make a decision involving choice between alternatives of different desirability; the outcome of the choice is uncertain; there is a possibility of failure” (Beebe, 1983, p. 39). One interesting challenge for us as language teachers is setting up activities in which our learners feel comfortable taking risks in the TL. Interactive speaking and listening can seem particularly daunting for language learners, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels.

7.5 Challenges We must acknowledge that risk-taking during L2 interactions can be anxiety-provoking. In Chapter 6, we learned about the types of anxiety language learners may experience. What can we as teachers do to help our students manage their anxiety? Here are some ideas for helping learners deal with anxiety in language lessons (Price, 1991):

1. Speaking in small groups decreases the likelihood of anxiety. Group work decreases the likelihood that the whole class will be listening to a single speaker. 2. Getting to know one’s classmates reduces “the fear of being ridiculed and takes away the feeling that the others are all smarter and more confident” (p. 107). 3. Anxiety can be decreased by “giving students more positive reinforcement, encouraging them to make mistakes, and helping them to make more realistic expectations of themselves by letting them know that they weren’t supposed to be fluent or have a perfect accent after two semesters” (p. 107). 4. Students have suggested that teachers could be “more like a friend helping them to learn and less like an authority figure making them perform” (p. 107).

In an early qualitative analysis of language learners’ diaries, I found a relationship between students’ competitiveness in language lessons and the arousal of anxiety. Many of the diarists experienced anxiety when they felt they were competing unsuccessfully with other learners. Those students who experienced facilitating anxiety were motivated to try harder. Those who experienced debilitating anxiety often skipped lessons or withdrew entirely from language courses (Bailey, 1983). As a researcher, from that analysis I learned to be aware of contexts that could promote feelings of competitiveness and anxiety among my students. As a teacher, I want to be particularly sensitive to my own actions and any comments that might make some students feel less competent and possibly even discouraged.

108

Teaching Listening and Speaking

7.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter, we have focused on interaction in L2 contexts, with a particular emphasis on conversations. The Practical Activities section discussed transcription, group work and pair work, role plays, strip stories, and the use of logic puzzles as reasoning gap activities. We then returned to the use of pictures in classroom activities to promote L2 interaction. In the Reflections section, we revisited the use of communication strategies during interaction and tied that topic to risk-taking. Finally, we considered anxiety as a challenge for language learners, one that teachers should be aware of and try to address.

  Discussion Questions 1 Have you ever been in an L2 conversation where you felt highly successful? If so, what was the situation and who were your interlocutors? Why did you feel successful? 2 What about the opposite extreme? Have you ever felt inadequate when interacting in your SL? Who were you talking with? Why did you feel inadequate? 3 Think about a transactional context where you needed to achieve some goal (getting a hotel room, asking for help, buying a meal, buying a bus ticket, or getting directions) in your L2. Did you use one or more communication strategies? Were you able to accomplish your goal? Why or why not? 4 As a language learner, have you ever experienced feelings of competitiveness regarding other students? If so, what was the context? What did you do? 5 Have your language teachers ever used game-like activities, such as strip stories and logic puzzles, in language lessons? If so, how did you feel about those activities? What, if anything, did you learn by participating in them?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Draft or find a text for a TL strip story that would be appropriate for your (future) students. Try it out with a proficient speaker of the TL and solicit that person’s feedback. 2 Based on what you learn from this trial run, revise the strip story as needed and try it out with two or more TL learners. What does their interaction suggest about ways you could further revise the story? 3 Working individually, try to solve both of the logic puzzles in this chapter. Do you agree that one puzzle is better suited for lower-level students and the other is better for more advanced students? Why or why not? 4 Have a classmate or colleague try to solve the puzzles. With that person, compare your solutions to the two puzzles and share your evidence for deciding which is better for lower-level learners or for advanced learners. 5 Select several photos of people who would interest students and have some friends make up a story about them in the TL. Using their input, create a storytelling task for your students.

Teaching Interactive Speaking and Listening

109

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●●

●●

Pridham’s (2013) book, The Language of Conversation, provides a highly readable introduction to this important topic. Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy, by Thornbury and Slade (2006), is somewhat more technical, but it is a great review of the research on conversation. It includes implications for teaching and numerous examples of the conversational issues revealed by those authors. New Ways in Teaching Speaking (edited by Vorholt, 2019) includes a section on group work and another on promoting interaction. For an example of a lengthy strip story, see Bailey (1998, pp. 157–159). It is based on the folktale of the farmer who trades places with his wife for a day.

  Technological Tools ●●

Please visit the TIRF website for free downloadable reference lists on interaction, transcription, drama and role plays in L2 teaching and learning, and speaking in L2 contexts.

●●

For helpful explanations of linguistic terms you can consult the online Linguistic Glossary.

●●

A more complete compendium of terms can be found online at the SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms.

110

Chapter 8 Tasks and Projects in Teaching Listening and Speaking

8.1 Introduction As we saw in Chapter 4, SLA research, particularly in the interactionist and sociocultural traditions, has helped us understand the value of learners using the TL to do things, including doing things with others. Language teachers, curriculum designers, and materials developers have translated SLA research findings into pedagogical activities. This chapter addresses two major practical outcomes of this trend: (1) task-based learning and teaching (TBLT); and (2) project-based learning and teaching (PBLT). Although TBLT and PBLT can be used in teaching all four macro skills, here we will continue to focus on the development of learners’ listening and speaking skills.

Guiding Questions 1 What is task-based learning and teaching? What are its characteristics? 2 What are the types of task-based learning and teaching? 3 What is project-based learning and teaching? 4 How are projects categorized? 5 How can task-based and project-based learning be used in teaching L2 speaking and listening?

8.2 What We Know TBLT and PBLT are very well suited for developing learners’ TL speaking and listening skills. TBLT typically functions at the level of lessons, while PBLT may span several lessons. As Hinkel (2006) has noted, TBLT “is probably among the most widely adopted integrated models” (p. 113). That is, it provides many ways to incorporate speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

8.2.1 Task-based Learning and Teaching There are various ways of defining and categorizing tasks. For example, Van den Branden (2006) said that a task “is an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which

112

Teaching Listening and Speaking

necessitates the use of language” (p. 4). Noting this goal orientation, Richards and Rodgers (2014) acknowledge that, although there are various definitions of tasks: there is a commonsense understanding that a task is an activity or goal that is carved out using language, such as finding a solution to a puzzle, reading a map and giving directions, making a telephone call, writing a letter, or reading a set of instructions and assembling a toy. (p. 177)

In fact, in addition to having goals, tasks involve two other essential components: the input which drives the task and the procedures learners will use in completing the task (Nunan, 2004). Let us briefly examine each of these elements in turn. The first component consists of the goals underpinning the task: “the general intentions behind any learning task” (Nunan, 2004, p. 41). In teaching speaking and listening, such goals are not necessarily as precise as student learning objectives (though, of course, learning objectives can be articulated in designing a task). Goals in task-based teaching are typically what we teachers want our students to gain by participating in the task. They can be either linguistically focused (such as developing skills in asking questions) or affective in nature (becoming more confident about seeking information in the TL), or both. In Nunan’s (2004) TBLT framework, input consists of “the spoken, written, and visual data that learners use in the course of completing a task” (p. 47). Input can be almost anything that the learners work with during the task, whether it comes from the textbook, the media, the internet, teacher-produced materials, or the learners themselves. Input can consist of the texts (either written or spoken), pictures, manipulables, etc. Next, procedures are the steps to be taken in carrying out the task. The procedures are what learners will do with the input. They will vary depending on the goals and the input given to (or sought by) the learners. These procedures can include sequencing, organizing, prioritizing, summarizing, illustrating, evaluating, matching, comparing, describing, editing, compiling, and so on. When students work in pairs or small groups, these steps typically involve a great deal of interaction. Nunan (2004) distinguishes between learning mode and environment in TBLT. He says that learning mode “refers to whether the learner is operating on an individual or a group basis” (p. 71). But additional questions remain: “If operating on an individual basis, is the learner self-paced but teacher-directed, or entirely self-directed? If the learner is operating as part of a group, is the task mainly for whole class, small group, or pair work?” (pp. 71–72). TBLT can take place in a wide range of contexts, including L2 speaking and listening classes. According to Nunan (2004), environment “refers to where the learning actually takes place. It might be a conventional classroom in a school or language centre, a community class, a workplace setting, a selfaccess centre, or a multi-media language centre” (p. 71). Some tasks are brief and compact enough to be completed in a lesson or part of a lesson. Others are more complex and take longer. When several related tasks work together, we merge into PBLT, which will be described below.

8.2.1.1 Cycles and Sequences of TBLT Willis and Willis (2001) suggest iterative cycles in TBLT. First, working in pairs or small groups in the task stage, learners actually accomplish task goals by using the procedures with the input to accomplish

Tasks and Projects

113

the goals. This stage involves the students using TL structures and vocabulary that they have already encountered, but they can also consult the teacher or one another for help. The planning stage involves planning how to share the outcomes of the task process. The students strategize, with the teacher’s help as needed, to best communicate their results to others. In this stage “a focus on form is natural and teacher advice and correction are likely to be of most use” (Willis & Willis, 2001, p. 178). This emphasis on form makes sense because the final stage is the report stage, when the students tell their classmates about the outcome of their work on the tasks, using the TL. In the report stage, the teacher’s role is that of the moderator while the students present their results “as accurately and fluently as they can” (Willis & Willis, 2001, p. 178). The presentation may be given to class members or to a wider audience (as is sometimes the case in PBLT). The report stage can be audio- or video-recorded so the students can review their presentations. Finally, Willis and Willis (2001) say that after these three stages a further language focus phase provides an opportunity “for deeper and more systematic study of the task cycle” (p. 178). The language focus phase can utilize the teacher’s observations, learners’ recollections, or recordings of the report stage. It can include explicit feedback on the students’ speech, including their pronunciation, grammatical accuracy, and vocabulary choices. Nunan (2004) describes a psycholinguistic processing approach to sequencing tasks that entails ten steps organized in three categories: (1) the processing phase, which involves comprehension; (2) the productive phase, in which learners generate speech; and (3) the interactive phase, in which learners are both comprehending and producing the TL. In the processing phase, first, learners simply listen to a spoken text. Second, they listen to speech and respond nonverbally. For example, in a TPR activity, learners listen and respond physically to spoken commands. Third, learners give a non-verbal but also non-physical response to oral input—for instance, making tick marks in a grid. Fourth, following spoken input, learners respond verbally. In the productive phase there are three steps. First, listeners repeat what they have heard. Second, the learners listen to a cue and complete the idea somehow—as in a sentence completion task. Third, learners listen to a prompt or a question and give a personal response that is true for them individually. Finally, in the interactive phase, there are three steps. To engage in interaction, learners can participate in a role play. As an alternative, they can express their own views or share information about their own lives. Finally, in pairs or small groups, students solve problems or work with information gaps. Nunan (2004) adds that “a task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle, and an end” (p. 4). Often, as a result of successfully completing a challenging task, students feel a sense of accomplishment about their listening and speaking skills.

8.2.1.2 Types of Tasks in TBLT In the literature on TBLT, a distinction is made between pedagogical tasks and real-world tasks. Pedagogical tasks are classroom-based and involve students “comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge to express meaning rather than to manipulate form” (Nunan, 2004, p. 4). In contrast, real-world tasks (also called target tasks) involve “comprehending, manipulating, producing,

114

Teaching Listening and Speaking

or interacting in the target language to achieve nonlinguistic outcomes” (p. 459). Such nonlinguistic outcomes might include buying vegetables, opening a bank account, or following spoken directions to the post office in an unfamiliar city. Pedagogical tasks have four key characteristics (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). First, students create some sort of product. Second, learners participate in steps involving language to develop the product(s) to complete the task. Third, completing the task requires TL use and cognition resources (such as materials). Fourth, there is some sort of accountability to determine that the task has been done successfully. Language teaching tasks can be either focused or unfocused. In a focused task “a particular structure is required in order for a task to be completed” (Nunan, 2004, p. 94). In contrast, in an unfocused task “the learners are able to use any linguistic resources at their disposal in order to complete the task” (p. 94). As Hinkel (2018) notes, in task-based instruction, “contextualized uses of specific grammar structures and vocabulary can be emphasized to connect the subject matter and language learning activities” (p. 115). Such activities would be examples of focused tasks. Finally, tasks can be either convergent or divergent. Convergent tasks have a single, correct, and agreed-upon outcome (like the logic puzzles described in Chapter 7). Divergent tasks permit various outcomes, as is often the case in small-group discussions, unless the task requires that the group members reach a consensus. One claim of TBLT proponents is that “engaging learners in task work provides a better context for the activation of learning processes than form-focused activities and hence ultimately provides better opportunities for language learning to take place” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 175). As we saw in Chapter 4, form-focused activities occur when the focus shifts to accuracy during a meaning-based activity. Richards and Rodgers (2014) note that “TBLT does not preclude drawing learners’ attention to form; however, grammar is not taught as an isolated feature of language, but as it arises from its role in meaningful communication” (p. 180). In fact, students often request the grammar or vocabulary they need in order to complete a task.

8.2.1.3 Types of Speaking Tasks Goh and Burns (2012) describe three types of speaking tasks: monologic, communication-gap, and discussion tasks. These task types are all useful for various kinds of L2 speaking and listening practice, and they are clearly related to communicative language teaching. Monologic tasks (discussed in Chapter 6) provide learners with “a chance to speak intensively without any initial interruptions” (p. 211). In monologic tasks, individual speakers must “introduce, maintain, and close a topic; use cohesive devices to organize extensive discourse; and anticipate and share listeners’ perspectives” (p. 212). Monologic tasks can be as brief and informal as leaving a telephone message or as extensive and formal as giving a face-to-face oral presentation to an audience. In contrast, communication-gap tasks and discussion tasks are both interactive. They are ideal for speaking and listening practice in pair work or small-group work. According to Goh and Burns (2012), there are two kinds of communication-gap tasks. In an information-gap task, one person has information that others lack. As we saw in Chapter 6, that person must use the TL to share that information with the others. In some models of communicative language

Tasks and Projects

115

teaching, a further distinction is made: The two-way information gap (also called the jigsaw task) involves two or more people having different sets of complementary information that they must share in the TL in order to successfully complete the task. The strip-story activity we saw in Chapter 7 is an example of a jigsaw task. In contrast, in context-gap tasks, learners work in small groups or in pairs starting with shared input. All the participants “are given the same set of information, such as a set of pictures or a list of words” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 203). The task is for them to use those materials to create new content, which they then present to their classmates, who serve as listeners. Thus, the students generate “a context for the information that they are sharing, encouraging them to express their meaning by drawing on their knowledge of the language” (pp. 203–204). The group story-building activities explained in Chapter7 are examples of context-gap tasks. Finally, in discussion tasks, learners “share their personal ideas with one another by drawing on their own background knowledge and experience” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 207). This type of task may not have a single clear conclusion. Instead, the outcome is the sharing of ideas and views. Some resolution of differing opinions may or may not result: “The purpose is not to achieve an outcome, but purely to give learners a chance to practice their speaking skills by tackling an abstract topic” (p. 208). Some teachers feel that discussion tasks are not really task-based activities because they frequently do not have a definitive result; however, one advantage of these tasks is that they can involve learners using a wide range of language forms. Thus, discussion tasks are often examples of unfocused tasks (Nunan, 2004). In contrast, conversation is sometimes not considered to be a task because, given its “primarily interpersonal function, conversation is not conducive to the use of those interactional moves, like clarification requests, that are believed to be crucial for acquisition” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 268). According to Thornbury and Slade (2006), “structured transactional tasks, with clearly defined objectives are defining features of task-based language teaching” (p. 267; italics in the original). They add that this transactional focus “has left some writers, such as Cook (2000), to criticize task-based learning on the grounds that it is overly preoccupied with language work at the expense of language play” (p. 267). They add that a more ludic focus on language learning would promote casual conversation, which includes jokes and puns.

8.2.1.4 Principles of TBLT Different authors use varying degrees of specificity in talking about the principles of TBLT. According to Willis and Willis (2001), there are two key principles. The first “is that units of syllabus organization should be tasks which define what outcomes can be achieved through language, rather than linguistic items as such” (p. 176). Their second principle is that “learning will be effective only if it is related closely to language use and involves relating form and meaning” (p. 176). Nunan (2014) articulates six principles that inform TBLT. First, language courses should be based on learners’ needs. Second, learners’ language abilities develop “through using the language rather than by studying and memorizing bits of the linguistic system” (p. 459). Third, incorporating learners’ personal experiences is a key part of learning. Fourth, TBLT focuses on both learning strategies and content. Fifth, what students encounter in lessons is carefully connected to the ways in which they must

116

Teaching Listening and Speaking

use the TL outside the classroom. And, sixth, the authentic use of reading and listening texts is essential in TBLT. Related to this last principle, as we saw in Chapter 5, authenticity is a particularly important issue in the selection and use of listening materials. There we focused on authenticity of text, but authenticity of task is equally important. Task authenticity is defined as “the use of spoken and written material that has been produced for purposes of communication, not for purposes of language teaching” (Nunan, 2014, p. 461). Authentic tasks are those that closely parallel the kinds of things students must be able to do with the TL outside the safety of the language classroom. In other words, they are “real-world” or “target” tasks, such as getting directions or asking for help.

8.2.1.5 Task Difficulty In terms of task-difficulty, Nunan (2004) describes a continuum of easier to more difficult tasks. Placement along the continuum is based on factors related to the learner, the text or input to the learner, and the task itself. First, learner factors include the students’ level of confidence, motivation, language skills, relevant cultural knowledge, and prior experience. Another learner factor is whether the students can learn at the pace set for task completion. I would add that the learners’ anxiety and willingness to communicate may also be learner factors related to confidence. Second, there are several characteristics of the text used as input to the learners that influence task difficulty. These include its length, density, clarity, contextual clues, and familiarity. As we saw in Chapter 5, familiarity—which is a function of our background knowledge—is a matter of both genre (our familiarity with the format) and content (our understanding of the subject matter). When learners are listening to spoken input, the speed of the text can also be an issue. Finally, task factors are the cognitive complexity of the task, the number of steps involved, the amount of context provided, and whether or not grammatical accuracy is required. We must also ask how much time is available and whether or not help is provided. Teachers should consider all of these issues in planning and carrying out task-based and project-based lessons in speaking and listening classes.

8.2.2 Project-based Learning and Teaching The term project-based learning and teaching is often used in both general education and language education. But what is a project in these contexts? As Nunan (2017) explains, a project: has a beginning, a middle, and an end; the focus is on the creation and exchange of meaning rather than the manipulation of form; there is a link between the classroom work and the world beyond the classroom; there is a concrete outcome or “product”; completion of the project involves working through a series of steps or carrying out a number of subsidiary steps. (p. 128)

In short, PBLT involves several related tasks. In language classes, projects consist of “integrated ‘maxitasks’ that could last over the course of a semester, or … a year” (Nunan, 2004, p. 135). This view of the scope of projects is echoed by Stoller (2006), who notes that “most projects extend into weeks, an entire semester or even a full school year” (p. 21). She feels that working on projects for

Tasks and Projects

117

an extended period of time promotes ongoing feedback, which “makes it easier for students to reflect on their accomplishments” (p. 30). Stoller adds that, because of the duration of most projects, students have “multiple opportunities to connect new information with known information, thereby consolidating [their] learning” (p. 31). We should note that Nunan’s description of a project does not refer to any particular proficiency level or TL. Indeed, with careful planning, we can design projects that will be productive for learners of any language at any level of proficiency. In fact, Stoller (2002) claims that PBLT “should be viewed as a versatile vehicle for fully integrated language and content learning, making it a viable option for language educators working in a variety of instructional settings” (p. 109).

8.2.2.1 Characteristics of PBLT After an extensive review of relevant literature, Stoller (2002) listed the following characteristics of project work:

1. Project work focuses on content learning rather than on specific language targets. Real-world subject matter and topics of interest to students can become central to projects. 2. Project work is student centered, though the teacher plays a major role in offering support and guidance throughout the process. 3. Project work is cooperative rather than competitive. Students can work on their own, in small groups, or as a class to complete a project, sharing resources, ideas, and expertise along the way. 4. Project work leads to authentic integration of skills and processing of information from varied sources, mirroring real-life tasks. 5. Project work culminates in an end product (e.g., an oral presentation, a poster session, a bulletin-board display, a report, or a stage performance) that can be shared with others, giving the project a real purpose. 6. Project work is potentially motivating, stimulating, empowering, and challenging. It usually results in building student confidence, self-esteem, and autonomy as well as improving students’ language skills, content learning, and cognitive abilities. (p. 110)

Of course, projects can be completed by individual students, but of main value for language learning are the types of interaction in which pairs or groups of students will engage.

8.2.2.2 Types of Projects Following Henry (1994), Stoller describes projects as being structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The most structured projects are those that are shaped by the teacher in terms of the tasks, the sequence, procedures, the end product, etc. In semi-structured projects, the teacher offers guidance and ideas, but the learners have a large role to play as well. Unstructured projects are determined and managed by the students. Different types of information and the procedures for gathering information influence the types of projects students can do (Stoller, 2002). In encounter projects, learners use the TL to gain information from people through face-to-face oral interaction. Correspondence projects involve soliciting

118

Teaching Listening and Speaking

information in writing (e.g., emails, letters, questionnaires), but Stoller includes telephone calls in this category because they are not face-to-face communication. Finally, research projects involve gathering information through the internet or a library. Encounter projects seem to be the type that provides the greatest opportunities for learners to practice interactive speaking and listening. The types of projects you use with your students will depend on the course goals, as well as the learners’ interests and proficiency levels. Many different kinds of tasks can be included in PBLT, and those tasks can be introduced incrementally. Doing so will scaffold the students’ actions on the main project and will help to keep them from feeling overwhelmed.

8.3 Practical Activities Both TBLT and PBLT can be used with any TL and at any proficiency level. As noted above, a key issue in setting up multi-step projects is to scaffold the procedures carefully. Here is an example of a project that uses pictures from particular countries, regions, or cities. This project works well in SL contexts, with students from a range of different countries, but it can be particularly productive in FL contexts. In completing this project, students produce a persuasive speech, either singly or in pairs. The speech can also be framed as part of a panel presentation completed by small groups. In an FL context, the purpose of the presentation can be to encourage tourists to visit the students’ home country, region, or city. As an alternative, in an SL context, students can either tell people in their host country about their home countries or they can learn about a region, city, historic site, or national park in their host country and tell their classmates about it. The three different purposes for this tourism activity are summarized in Table 8.1. Let’s start with students in FL contexts, such as learners of Mandarin in Australia. The idea is that students will prepare and deliver illustrated speeches in their TL for an international travel agency. The speeches will be about where in Australia to bring tourists from countries or regions where the learners’ TL is spoken (e.g., Mandarin learners would prepare speeches for a Chinese audience about places to visit in Australia). If the students are currently residing in the places to be promoted, they can take photos themselves or they can locate pictures online. They can also use paper products, such as magazines, travel brochures, or calendars, as the sources of their images. Table 8.1  Contexts of a PBLT Tourism Activity Context of Learning

Example

Purpose of Project

1. Learners of Mandarin in Australia

Students encourage L1 speakers of their TL to visit their host country or region

Learners of Mandarin communicate in Mandarin to speakers of Mandarin about Australia

2(a). Learners of ESL in Australia

Students encourage Australians and/ or their ESL classmates in English to visit the learners’ home countries

Learners of English communicate about their home countries to people in their host country

2(b). Learners of ESL in Australia

Students tell their classmates about their (future) location in Australia (e.g., for work or study opportunities)

Learners of English communicate with other learners of English (and possible additional audience members)

Tasks and Projects

119

As students prepare their speeches, the teacher can provide (or students can brainstorm) the types of information to include. For example, whether students are promoting their home country or their host country, they can talk about history, tourist attractions, natural resources, clothing and customs, holidays, festivals, sports, music, arts and crafts, local foods, and so on. To add a writing component, students can create short captions for each photo. A larger writing component can involve creating an illustrated history of the country, region, or city for tourists or to send to schools in a sister city. Students can also pitch the talk to particular groups of tourists, such as environmentalists, musicians, bird watchers, history enthusiasts, or anthropologists. If students give their presentations to their classmates, it’s a good idea for the listeners to have specific roles or tasks to do. For example, worksheets for guided note-taking can have headings for the key topics (history, natural resources, products, etc.). You can vary the difficulty and extent of this project in several ways. For instance, you can pre-teach some of the vocabulary the students will need, especially if your learners’ TL proficiency is not at the upper-beginner level or higher. But it can also be useful to wait and let the students tell you what vocabulary they need as they carry out the steps of their projects. In that situation, they may be more motivated to learn, having noticed the gap and determined the need themselves. The speeches or panel presentations can be given with slideshows, if the learners have access to the technology. But the presentations can be just as effective when given in a low-tech style using paper images. The choice of visual support depends on available resources, students’ goals, and their ages, as well as the size of the room and the audience. If the technology is available, students can make a video instead of using still photos. In that case, they can write a script for the narration of the video, but doing so changes the speech event from extemporaneous speaking to a more formal scripted narration. As noted above, in focused tasks, the students use particular language structures. For example, if the students are learning English, this project provides a natural context for using the modal auxiliaries to advise the audience members about places to visit. The modal verbs should, must, can, may, might, and could are all useful in this context. Here is an example. If I were encouraging people to visit certain parts of California, I would use the following structures: You must visit Yellowstone National Park. It is one of our oldest and most beautiful national parks. You should also visit San Francisco, and you could drive down the Pacific Coast Highway from there to Monterey. You can do so in just about three hours, depending on how often you stop to take pictures. You may also want to visit the Monterey Bay Aquarium. You might even want to take a whale-watching boat tour of the Monterey Bay.

Given the use of these modal auxiliary verbs to indicate the strength of the various suggestions, this paragraph exemplifies a focused task (Nunan, 2004). After the presentations, class members can ask questions, provide feedback, and even vote for the best speech. The speakers’ peers and the teacher can give the presenters feedback. To add depth to this part of the task, the students can identify the evaluation criteria prior to giving their presentations (see Chapter 13). If you have the cooperation of colleagues, they and their students can be invited to listen to the presentations too.

120

Teaching Listening and Speaking

In sum, this multi-step tourism activity uses photos of something the students know about and can explain. The presentation involves authentic and purposeful spoken communication in the TL. It is based on a natural information gap, since the language learners typically know much more about their topic than the audience members do. The photos provide something to talk about and take the focus partially off the speakers themselves. Depending on the focus of your course, this project can include reading and writing as well as speaking and listening. For instance, the learners may read various sources in preparing their talks. If you wish to add a writing task, the students can produce an outline of the talk, write a script to narrate a slideshow or a video, or even create a travel brochure for promoting their ideas. They can also write a cover letter to travel agencies or a letter to the leaders of their city’s sister city.

8.4 Reflections I once taught a content-based course to low-level ESL students in California. The students had enrolled in our intensive summer English program to prepare for work or further study in the United States. They were from a variety of home cultures, but all were planning to stay in various parts of the United States for a period of time. In responding to a simple needs assessment process, the students indicated that they wanted to learn more about their host country, particularly the region where they would be living. But they also wanted to learn about something fun—not just about education, politics, history, or business. So in capitalizing on the summer curriculum (which included a weekend trip to Yosemite National Park), I designed a very simple project in which all the students would learn about and give presentations on a US national park that interested them and/or was in a region of the country where they planned to work or continue their studies. This topical focus was supported by many available, cheap, authentic materials. For instance, the free brochures given to visitors at the entrance to the national parks were clear and easily understood. They all followed the same format, so relevant vocabulary and grammar structures were recycled in several different contexts. For example, the brochures indicated whether or not there were hiking trails, campsites, opportunities for fishing, a visitors’ center, lodging within the park, places to buy groceries, and so on. In addition, photos of many national parks were easily accessible and often free (e.g., online or in paper calendars). To scaffold the project, as a class we studied the national parks in California together, beginning with Yosemite, since the students would be going there themselves. All of the students then identified a national park in the particular state they wanted to visit or where they planned to study or work after completing our intensive English program. As a group we brainstormed what kinds of information would be interesting for listeners to know about each park. The students identified location, history, geographic features, types of animals living there, and things to do for fun (hiking, fishing, snow skiing, and so on). The learners’ presentations were delightful! Although the students groaned when I said they should each speak for about five minutes, many talks ran twice that long. Several students were particularly interested in the animals they learned about for the first time. Some students made the effort to interview people who had visited the parks the students had chosen as the topics of their speeches, adding the element of an encounter task (Stoller, 2002). This unexpected outcome was so positive that I will make it part of the assignment when I have the chance to use this project again.

Tasks and Projects

121

In terms of the language involved, this project gave the students ample practice with the present tense and modal verbs (e.g., in discussing things to do), and past tense (in discussing the history of various parks). Numbers were also frequently used (in altitude, square mileage, typical rainfall or snowfall, average number of visitors annually, and so on). In this project, the students first had to learn about the particular park they had chosen. In that sense, this context does not provide the preexisting information gap when learners talk about their home country and culture. Once they had done their research, however, each speaker did possess unique knowledge about his or her park.

8.5 Challenges Nunan (2004) notes: “One of the potential problems with a task-based program is that it may consist of a seemingly random collection of tasks with nothing to tie them together” (p. 25). He suggests that tasks can be sequenced “through the principle of ‘task chaining,’” and explains that “task continuity (also called task chaining) is the interdependence of tasks, task components, and supporting enabling skills within an instructional sequence” (p. 125). “At a broader syllabus level, they are tied together topically/thematically, through the macrofunctions, microfunctions and grammatical elements they express” (p. 25). If tasks are carefully scaffolded and their use is explained, learners can see how they fit together. Making these connections happens almost naturally in PBLT as learners see their projects emerging, but the links may need some explanation in TBLT. The kinds of interaction that typically emerge in TBLT and project-based activities are sometimes quite different from those that are prevalent in teacher-fronted, form-focused language lessons, and thus may seem unusual or even unproductive to some students. In particular, if learners are accustomed to lessons structured on the PPP model, they can sometimes feel at a loss in TBLT or PBLT courses. Nunan (2014) points out that “sensitizing learners to the processes underlying their learning is particularly important for learners who come to the TBLT classroom from a traditional classroom and who may not recognize or accept task-based language learning as legitimate” (p. 460). It is also helpful to remind students from time to time about what they have been learning, so they will feel a sense of accomplishment. In both task-based and project-based language teaching, “language development is prompted by language use, with the study of language form playing a secondary role” (Willis & Willis, 2001, p. 174). This perspective can be quite confusing to both learners and teachers who are accustomed to lessons and syllabi that focus only on learning grammar structures and mastering the meaning and pronunciation of vocabulary items. If students are accustomed to teachers giving them grammar rules and definitions (as was typically the case in the “present” phase of PPP lessons), they may feel like they are not learning when they are doing tasks or projects. Willis and Willis (2001) note that “unless we encourage a focus on form, learners will develop more effective strategies for achieving communicative goals without an accompanying development of their language system” (p. 174). (My lack of the Spanish word for coat hangers in different contexts illustrates this point very well.) For this reason, a follow-up phase in which we do focus explicitly on TL forms can be very helpful in TBLT lessons.

122

Teaching Listening and Speaking

In summary, if TBLT replaces more traditional forms of instruction, students may not understand “the rationale behind what to them may appear a radical new way of learning, they may reject the approach” (Nunan, 2004, p. 65). It is important that students understand that the principles underpinning TBLT involve “a collaborative and transformative rather than a transmissive process, one in which the teacher creates an environment within which the learners take control of their own learning process” (Nunan, 2014, p. 460).

8.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter, we considered task-based and project-based learning and teaching and their usefulness in teaching speaking and listening. These two approaches are closely related to one another and to communicative language teaching. In fact, PBLT has been called a “super-task” (Nunan, 2014, p. 463) because most projects include numerous communicative tasks. It is thought that, by interacting to achieve task goals, learners have ample opportunity to negotiate for meaning. Examples of two projects were provided, which illustrate that the framework can be used with students at various proficiency levels.

  Discussion Questions 1 Have you ever taken a language class in which the teacher employed task-based lessons? If so, what were some of the tasks you used? Try to characterize them using the concepts explained in this chapter. What were your reactions to those tasks? 2 As a language learner, have you participated in project-based learning? If so, what is an example of a project you did? What did you learn by doing it? 3 As a (future) language teacher, would you use (or would you like to use) TBLT with your students? Why or why not? 4 What about PBLT? Would it be appropriate for your (future) students? Why or why not? 5 When would it be desirable to have students complete a project individually? Under what circumstances would group work or pair work be more favorable?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Examine a textbook that was written for learners of the TL you (plan to) teach. Does that textbook utilize task-based activities? If so, find a task that should work well with your (future) students. Discuss it with a classmate or colleague, noting any changes that would be needed for the task to be effective with your students.

Tasks and Projects

123

2 Nunan (2014) articulated six principles underpinning TBLT. Which of these principles seem most relevant to you? Which seem less important? Why? 3 Design a task for your students that relates to particular lesson objectives or course goals. What objective(s) or goal(s) would you wish to address? What kind of task would it be (e.g., focused or unfocused, pedagogical or real-world)? 4 If you are not yet teaching, imagine a TBLT lesson for the kinds of students you would like to teach. Think about their ages, their proficiency levels, and their likely reasons for learning the TL. Decide on a task you could set for those learners and explain its steps and outcomes to a classmate or colleague. 5 A focused task is one “in which a particular structure is required in order for the task to be completed” (Nunan, 2004, p. 94). Think of a TL structure your learners will probably need to know. Outline the steps of a focused task you could use to promote the students’ acquisition of that structure. 6 Design a realistic project your (future) students could undertake to promote their TL development. Share your ideas with a classmate or colleague. 7 Try to provide an example for each quadrant in the grid below. Focused Tasks

Unfocused Tasks

Pedagogical Tasks Real-world Tasks

  Suggested Readings ●●

Nunan’s (2004) book, Task-based Language Teaching, is highly readable and includes many practical ideas. Nunan’s (2014) chapter provides an excellent summary of key concepts in TBLT.

●●

See Stoller (2002, 2006) for clear discussions of PBLT. Her work on this topic is very influential.

●●

The book by Richards and Rodgers (2014) has a very good chapter about task-based language teaching.

●●

●●

Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach (Goh & Burns, 2012) also offers an excellent chapter about using TBLT in L2 speaking courses. Beckett and Miller (2006) have edited a book called Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present, and Future. It contains sixteen chapters written by authors working in a range of contexts.

124

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Technological Tools ●●

●●

Please visit the TIRF website for free downloadable reference lists on task-based and project-based learning and teaching. Edutopia has useful guidance about implementing PBLT.

Chapter 9 Speaking and Listening Fluency

9.1 Introduction What is fluency? Although laypersons often use the term to refer to general language ability, we will treat fluency as a separate construct, which is actually quite tricky to define. Spoken fluency includes linguistic factors, such as speech rate, length and placing of pauses, hesitation markers, and so on. It is also related to speakers’ apparent confidence in using the TL. This chapter will summarize ideas about this key construct and offer teaching activities designed to help increase learners’ fluency. We must acknowledge that fluency is typically associated with speaking, but L2 listening fluency is also important.

Guiding Questions 1 What is fluency? What is the difference between fluency and proficiency? 2 What are L2 complexity and accuracy? 3 What is the relationship between L2 complexity, accuracy, and fluency?

9.2 What We Know In L2 contexts, fluency is the “ease or automaticity in the learner speech and is manifested in flow, continuity, and smoothness of speech” (Tavakoli, Campbell, & McCormack, 2016, p. 447). These authors note that “speech fluency is a complex phenomenon that interacts with other aspects of performance and encompasses a multitude of linguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic factors involved in speech formulation and production” (p. 447). It involves “the ability to communicate one’s intended meaning effortlessly, smoothly, and with no or little disruption” (p. 448). Goh and Burns (2012) have a similar view. They define fluency as “the ability to communicate ideas effectively with few pauses and hesitations, causing minimal comprehension difficulties for the listener” (p. 220). We will return to this point about comprehension difficulties below, because it is an important factor in L2 interactions.

126

Teaching Listening and Speaking

9.2.1 Characteristics of Fluency According to Thornbury and Slade (2006), there are two major fluency factors. The first consists of “temporal variables, such as speech rate, pause length, and length of run (i.e., the mean number of syllables between pauses)” (p. 216). These issues are called “temporal variables” because they have to do with time. The other fluency factor consists of hesitation phenomena: “filled pauses (e.g., erm), repetitions, and self-corrections” (p. 216). These factors seem to indicate uncertainty. Citing the work of various researchers, Thornbury (2012) says that fluent speakers “produce something like 150 words per minute” (p. 201). But he notes that “speech rate alone does not account for the perception of fluency” (p. 201). Other factors include “the number of syllables between pauses, and the placing of pauses in utterances, as being significant indicators of L2 fluency” (p. 201). This point about pausing is important. Even highly proficient speakers pause at various points in the speech stream. But as Segalowitz (2012) notes, “the qualities that make speech fluent include fast speech, and the relative absence of undue hesitations, pausing, repetition, and repairs” (p. 240). A key word here is undue.

9.2.2 Three Components of Fluency Drawing on the work of Segalowitz (2010), Tavakoli, Campbell, and McCormack (2016) say that “L2 fluency comprises three distinct but interrelated concepts: cognitive, utterance, and perceived fluency” (p. 449). Each of these constructs is important, although teachers usually focus on utterance fluency. The first concept, cognitive fluency, is defined in terms of the speaker’s “ability to efficiently mobilize and integrate the underlying cognitive processes responsible for producing utterances” (Segalowitz, 2010, p. 48). Cognitive fluency involves “the efficiency of the operation of the cognitive mechanisms underlying performance” (Segalowitz, 2000, p. 202). It is related to the phases of conceptual preparation and formulation in the model of speech production discussed in Chapter 6 (Goh & Burns, 2012). The observable result of cognitive fluency is utterance fluency, which consists of the “measurable aspects of fluency such as speed, pausing, and hesitation” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 449). Utterance fluency is related to the articulation phase of speech production (Goh & Burns, 2012). It is what provides the data for analyzing the fluency of speech samples. The third component is important, but is not as often studied as the first two. Perceived fluency “refers to the inferences listeners make about someone’s cognitive fluency based on their perceptions of how fluent the speaker is, that is, their utterance fluency” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 449). In other words, interlocutors evaluate speakers’ thought processes through their perceptions of the speakers’ speech.

9.2.3 Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity Lazaraton (2014) asks whether fluency or accuracy is more important: “Should one come before the other? How does this decision depend on the learners involved and their backgrounds, needs, and proficiency levels?” (p. 15). She summarizes definitions of accuracy and fluency from Edge and Garton (2009): accuracy is “conforming to the language system itself,” while fluency is “operating the [language] system quickly” (Lazaraton, 2014, p. 15).

Speaking and Listening Fluency

127

According to Walqui and van Lier (2010), “accuracy, the use of correct forms, and fluency, the fluent and effortless expression of ideas, are of equal importance” (p. 67). But these authors acknowledge that “it is not easy to get the balance right in particular classroom activities, especially when English language learners are struggling with ever more complex concepts and subject matter” (pp. 67–68). Of course, this issue is true of learners of other languages as well. For many years, language teachers have understood the seeming competition between fluency and accuracy. The difficulty is that although language learners “may try to produce speech that is fluent and accurate, attending to meaning and form at the same time can exert rather heavy demands on them cognitively and affectively” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 225). As Swain (2005) notes: “We know that fluency and accuracy are different dimensions of language performance, and although practice may enhance fluency, it does not necessarily improve accuracy” (p. 474). The juxtaposition of fluency and accuracy ignores an important facet of speech production: complexity. Indeed, Tavakoli et al. (2016) describe successful L2 performance as “complex (both syntactically and lexically), accurate, and fluent” (p. 456). Influenced by Skehan’s (1998) analysis, Bohlke (2014) defines complexity as “the use of a wide range of structures to form more varied sentences” (p. 125). All three of these speech factors—fluency, accuracy, and complexity—“demand mental capacity, and a tradeoff occurs when one is emphasized more than another during a language activity” (p. 125). Research suggests that trying to speak fluently and accurately while using complex TL vocabulary and structures places tremendous demands on learners’ cognitive processing abilities. “Performing a cognitively demanding task that may require complex lexis and language structures has been shown to have a significant impact on L2 fluency” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 455). I would add that focusing on correct pronunciation when speaking the TL can also impede learners’ fluency. Here is the challenge for language learners: “Increasing attention to accuracy … is likely to hamper fluency and/or complexity. In an effort to increase fluency, a learner may rely more on language chunks, producing less accurate or less complex speech” (Bohlke, 2014, p. 125). Bohlke (2014) concludes that “encouraging learners to experiment with new expressions and combinations of words may have a negative effect on accuracy and fluency” (p. 125). In fact, Schmidt and Frota (1986) conclude that the psychological basis for fluency is the alteration “between two modes of production, one creative and hesitant, the other rehearsed, formulaic to varying degrees, and fluent” (p. 310). This point leads us to revisit formulaic language.

9.2.4 Formulaic Language and Automatization In Chapter 6, we saw that language learners can use formulaic language, which Thornbury and Slade (2006) call “ready-made or pre-fabricated units or chunks” (p. 218). Some of these fixed phrases are part of Dörnyei’s (1995) taxonomy of communication strategies, in the category of stalling or timegaining strategies. Examples include “As I was saying” and “Let me see,” or in more casual speech, “I think” and “You know.” Using such chunks can help learners maintain conversations. As chunk learning becomes automatized, learners’ speech becomes more fluent and sounds more idiomatic. Tavakoli et al. (2016) define automatization as “a process of development from conscious, controlled, and often slow processing of declarative knowledge to a more rapid, effortless, and attention-free processing

128

Teaching Listening and Speaking

of language” (pp. 463–464). They add that “automatisation is one of the most problematic stages of acquisition in the classroom context” (p. 466). The importance of using formulaic language is supported by the lexical approach (Lewis, 1993), which prioritizes the learning of vocabulary and collocations: “Lewis has popularized the belief … that having such a stock of prefabricated and memorized chunks is the single most important guarantor of conversational fluency, far more important than having an extensive knowledge of the target-language grammar” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 257).

9.2.5 Listening Fluency Listening fluency has received much less attention than speaking fluency. In fact, in two of the most widely used resources on teaching listening and research on listening in L2 contexts, this topic gets very little attention. Field (2008) makes one comment about listening fluency, and Rost (2016) doesn’t mention this issue at all. The term fluency does not appear in the glossary of either book; however, Field (2008) does raise this important point: Fluency forms one side of the coin in developing speaking skills, the other being accuracy. But how often do teachers make a concerted effort to develop the equivalent competencies in listening? These might be regarded as (for fluency) the acquisition of patterns of listening which approximate those of a native listener and (for accuracy) the possession of an ability to decode pieces of connected speech word by word. (p. 3)

In fact, most discussions of fluency are related to speech. This situation is probably because speech samples both provide data that can be analyzed in research and inform the issues we can address in teaching. As Nation and Newton (2008) note: “Fluency is typically measured by speed of access or production and by the number of hesitations; accuracy by the amount of error; and complexity by the presence of more complicated constructions, such as subordinate clauses” (p. 152). A review of research on hesitation phenomena in listening comprehension identified four types of hesitations:

1. Unfilled pauses, which are just periods of silence; 2. Filled pauses, where the speaker uses fillers such as “uh,” “um,” “ah,” “mm,” or “well,” “anyway,” “let me see”; 3. Repetitions, where the speaker repeats the same word or part of a word; and 4. False starts, where the speaker stops and then replaces the previous word or phrase with another choice. (Buck, 2001, p. 41)

Buck (2001) notes that these kinds of hesitations can cause problems for L2 listeners. In his findings, some “errors were due to listeners either misinterpreting hesitation phenomena as words, or parts of words, or to misinterpreting parts of words as hesitations” (p. 41). Listening fluency is described by Segalowitz (2007) as the ability to comprehend rapid speech. Such speech involves speed, of course, but it also involves reduced forms, particularly in casual conversation.

Speaking and Listening Fluency

129

These forms include utterances such as gonna (for “going to”), wanna (for “want to”), hafta (for “have to”), and didja (for “did you”). Trying to process words and phrases pronounced this way can be challenging to the listening fluency of L2 learners who have not been exposed to the characteristics of casual speech. Listening fluency is influenced by two components of cognitive fluency. The first is access fluidity: “the process of connecting words and expressions to their meanings (often referred to as lexical access)” (p. 182). The second is attention control: “the process by which a language user focuses and refocuses attention in real time as the message being communicated unfolds” (p. 182). Segalowitz (2007) argues that learners only develop strong access fluidity and attention control “through extensive exposure to and practice with the target language in naturalistic communicative situations” (p. 184). Such situations include hearing a range of accents—a topic we will explore in Chapter 10.

9.3 Practical Activities How can teachers help language learners develop their speaking and listening fluency? Nation and Newton (2008) have three research-based suggestions for fluency activities. The first one concerns the role of new vocabulary in fluency lessons. They say that new words should be used sparingly in fluency activities and that learners should be very familiar with about 99 percent of the vocabulary in such texts. Second, teachers can also utilize “fluency activities in each lesson that make use of items learned several days or weeks before” (p. 156). Doing so helps learners reinforce their control over material that is familiar but may not have been mastered yet. Finally, “a third alternative is periodically to give large blocks of time to fluency activities” (p. 156). As a teacher, I have often used a brief shift to focus on fluency in accuracy-oriented lessons. I have also alternated between focusing on accuracy and on fluency. But I find this suggestion about an in-depth emphasis on fluency to be particularly useful. Having entire fluency-oriented lessons gives learners a chance to relax, “warm up” a bit, and speak confidently. Through much of the history of language teaching, accuracy has been prioritized; however, “with the growing interest in using language for communication, influenced by globalization as well as the development of communicative language teaching, achieving speech fluency has become an ultimate goal of language learning for many L2 learners” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 448). Nation and Newton (2008) characterize fluency activities as having three key characteristics: Activities are message focused (i.e., meaning is more important than accuracy); the tasks are intentionally planned to be easy; and learners can do the tasks at a high level of performance. In other words, “learners demonstrate fluency when they take part in meaning-focused activity and do it with speed and ease without holding up the flow of talk” (p. 151). These authors ask the following questions about listening fluency activities:

1. Are the learners interested in the message? 2. Are the learners easily able to understand the message? 3. Is the message coming to the learners at a rate that stretches the fluency of the learners? (p. 163)

130

Teaching Listening and Speaking

These are good questions for us teachers to ask ourselves as we plan fluency activities. Tavakoli et al. (2016) suggest three broad categories of activities to help learners improve their L2 fluency: (1) awareness-raising; (2) fluency improvement strategies; and (3) fluency practice opportunities. You may want to use each category in a single lesson or to space them across different lessons, depending on the needs and proficiency level(s) of your students. Let us consider examples of each type of activity.

9.3.1 Awareness-raising Activities A first step in many L2 lessons is to help learners develop their awareness of the target structure, vocabulary, or skill. In one fluency awareness-raising activity, for example, learners “listened to a nonnative speaker of English retelling a picture story and evaluated the speaker’s fluency in terms of speed, pausing, and repair measures. Students examined the transcript of the picture story retelling and identified where fluency had broken down” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, pp. 453–454). Another helpful awareness-raising activity is to have learners realize how and where pauses occur. You can start by having students listen to three different L2 users: one who is very proficient, one who is approximately an intermediate L2 user, and one who is less proficient. The activity begins with students transcribing the speech samples, as suggested in Chapter 7. As an alternative, you can provide transcripts of the speech samples and have your students listen to the recordings and mark the points on the transcripts where the speakers pause. We should recall at this point that fostering language awareness was one of Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) macrostrategies. It has been a common theme throughout this book and doing awarenessraising activities can be helpful in many aspects of teaching L2 speaking and listening.

9.3.2. Fluency Improvement Strategies Nation and Newton (2008) note the importance of including planning steps in fluency activities. These steps include “brainstorming the topic, pre-reading on the topic, observation of others doing the activity, repeated opportunities to do the activity, preparing and practicing in the first language, and prediction activities” (p. 155). These authors assert that these preparation steps can “make the quality of the subsequent listening or speaking reach a higher level than it would without the preparation” (p. 155). Fluency improvement strategies include using “lexical fillers (e.g., well) and longer lexical chunks (e.g., let me think) and practising them in conversations” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 453). This category also involves “avoiding repetitions and hesitations in conversations when possible” (p. 453). Thus fluency improvement strategies entail both incorporating stalling devices and avoiding dysfluency indicators. Another fluency improvement strategy is for learners to intentionally incorporate formulaic language or chunks as a way of sustaining turns during interaction. Here are some examples of formulaic expressions in English that can be used to buy time during interactions: “Well,” “Let me see,” “Let me think about that (for a minute/moment),” “Hmm, that’s a good point/question,” “Let me make sure I understand the question,” “I’m not certain/sure, but …,” “I don’t know for sure, but ….” These sorts

Speaking and Listening Fluency

131

of expressions often arise in formal or semi-formal discourse contexts, such as oral presentations or seminar discussions. Using these sorts of formulae can increase the appearance of fluency (i.e., listeners’ attitudes regarding the speaker’s perceived fluency). Indications of comprehension can be useful in supporting casual conversations. There are several formulaic expressions that can serve this role. Here are some examples in English: “I understand,” “I see,” “Clearly,” “I get it.” Back-channeling appropriately can also promote conversational interaction and the appearance of fluency. In English, such expressions include “Yeah,” “Yes,” “Okay,” “Right,” and “Mm-hmm.” In an awareness-raising preliminary activity, learners can listen for such expressions in recordings. You can also provide transcripts of the recordings and have the students underline examples of these expressions on the transcripts.

9.3.3 Fluency Practice Opportunities Finally, students can practice speaking fluently in several ways, including retelling a story they had listened to earlier. Subsequently they can tell another story, “recording their performance, listening to their own performance to identify fluency problems, and recording their performance of the same task again” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, pp. 453–454). The inside-outside circle is a technique you can use to provide fluency practice opportunities. In my experience, it works best if there are ten or more students in the class. As the name suggests, half the students stand in a circle facing outward. The other students surround the first group in a circle facing inward so that there are two concentric circles made up of pairs of students facing one another. If there is an uneven number of students, you can join the circle as a listener. The students in the inner circle are the speakers. Depending on their language proficiency they speak for about three minutes while their partners listen. Then the listening partners move two or three people to the right, and the speakers repeat the same talk to their new partners, who then shift two or three people to the right one more time and the speakers repeat their ideas again. As a result, each speaker has told virtually the same story three times. Then the students who were speakers become the listeners and the other students take their turns as speakers. To begin the activity, you can either provide a task or question and give the students time to plan, or you can simply pose a question that they then answer. It is important to keep in mind these questions from Nation and Newton (2008):

1. Are the listeners interested in the activity and its outcome? 2. Are [the speakers] easily able to find things to talk about? 3. Are they speaking without a lot of hesitation? 4. Are they speaking at a fast rate? (p. 163)

The point here is to find motivating topics that will engage both the speakers and listeners and will promote rapid speech. The rationale for activities like the inside-outside circle is provided by Tavakoli et al. (2016), who summarized a substantial body of research. They note that “adding planning time or task repetition in

132

Teaching Listening and Speaking

order to enhance proceduralisation of task performance strongly suggests that such interventions are beneficial in improving L2 fluency” (p. 450). The 4–3–2 technique is similar to the inside-outside circle (Maurice, 1983). The procedure is that one person tells the same information to three different listeners, as is the case in the inside-outside circle activity. The first telling takes four minutes, but the second time the speaker must relate the same information in three minutes. For the third iteration, the speaker has only two minutes to share the same amount of information. Initially the students may find this process rather intimidating; however, you can vary the task to manage any anxiety that may arise. For instance, initially students can talk off the cuff about very familiar topics, or they can list a few key points on a slip of paper. You can also demonstrate the process yourself. It helps the speakers if you coach all the students about being positive and attentive listeners. At first, students can be given quiet time to prepare their ideas individually. Later, when they are familiar with the 4–3–2 process, they can be given a familiar topic but no time to prepare. Finally, you can generate various topics written on slips of paper and distribute them to the class at random. In that context students have to give an unplanned (impromptu) talk. It is very important that the listeners do not interrupt the speakers. As Nation and Newton (2008) note: “The listener’s attention is focused on the message because of the changing audience” (p. 154). The point of the activity is to increase speaking fluency while concentrating on meaning. In my opinion, this activity should also be lively and fun. In a study by de Jong and Perfetti (2011), students completed a speaking task three times. There were two groups of learners in the experiment, one of which addressed the same topic all three times. In contrast, the second group addressed three different topics. The results of that study suggest that “whereas task repetition has an impact on gains in different measures of fluency for both groups in the short term, the long-term gains in fluency were observable only for the group who spoke about the same topic three times” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 450). Another useful fluency improvement activity is to have students narrate a familiar story in the TL as a video of the tale is playing with the soundtrack muted. This procedure was used by Ross (1987) in developing a narrative discourse test of English for university students of English in Japan. Two Japanese folktales were chosen as the input: “The Cunning of Foxes” and “The Magic Carp.” Ross and his colleagues believed that these stories would be very familiar to all the students. In that context, the purpose of the task was for placement testing. The task was piloted with a group of learners who had “extensive overseas contact with English” (p. 62). Fluency was one of the factors rated on a six-point scale. The highest fluency rating (six points) was awarded when the student could easily keep up with the image provided by the video. Those students could “narrate the story at the same pace as the scenes change, and [could] anticipate upcoming frames” (p. 63). A rating of one point was given in cases where the student “attempted utterances, but commonly abandoned them when the scenes change” (p. 63). A benefit of this task for teaching is that, in narrating the video, the learners already know the basic story. They don’t have to decide on the plot line or create the story (the conceptual preparation phase); they just have to describe the action as it unfolds. For this reason, the narration task provides opportunities to develop utterance fluency.

Speaking and Listening Fluency

133

Many people are familiar with the concept of a three-act play. Here I want to share a teaching activity based on a skit or a brief play performed in three speeds. This activity is not meant to be a formal presentation for an audience. Instead, it is a simple (and even silly) in-class activity to promote fluency, pronunciation accuracy, and language awareness. Here is a brief description:

1. Students memorize their own parts in a very brief scripted play or skit. 2. Students rehearse their lines together, working to convey emotion through clarity of speech and the use of suprasegmental phonemes, as well as appropriate gestures and facial expressions. 3. Students rehearse the skit delivered at normal speed. They should strive for fluency and clarity as they deliver their lines. 4. When the group members feel confident about delivering their lines at normal speed, they recite the text at a greatly slowed speed. As they articulate their lines, the vowels are elongated and the suprasegmental phonemes are exaggerated. In my experience, this step promotes a focus on the articulation phase of speech production. 5. Next, the group members deliver their lines as quickly as they can. I believe that this step promotes fluency.

In short, in these three different recitations of the text, the learners can focus on different features of speech delivery. The text you choose should have very brief utterances and ideally only three to five students should be involved in each performance. You can add the role of “director” to coach the other participants in how to deliver their lines. The script should be short, so the students don’t have to memorize long stretches of text. The spoken lines should also be coherent so the scripted conversations make sense. One way to engage more students in producing language in the skit is to have very few characters with limited lines. For example, I’ve used a sketch with a villain, a princess, a knight, the villain’s servant, and two students who face one another and serve as a pair of creaking doors. Less-confident students typically volunteer to be the doors. But after a bit of practice and hilarity, we switch roles and the doors become the princess and the knight. You can assign roles or the students can draw roles written on slips of paper.

9.4 Reflections Some years ago, an experienced Japanese teacher of English enrolled in the TESOL MA program where I teach. We will call the teacher “Hiro” (a pseudonym). He had an excellent admissions application. In terms of his English proficiency, his reading, grammar, and vocabulary scores were outstanding, and his listening subtest score was good. When he arrived in California, it became clear that his pronunciation was near-native. During his first semester, Hiro did well in his courses though he seemed quiet and sometimes rather tense in class. As the term was ending, he came to my office and told me that he would not be returning for the next semester. I was quite surprised and asked him why. Hiro told me he couldn’t understand his professors and couldn’t participate in seminar discussions. It seemed that the

134

Teaching Listening and Speaking

conversational nature of seminar classes was not at all what he had experienced in his prior education in Japan. Furthermore, apparently because his English pronunciation was so good, my colleagues and I had misjudged Hiro’s fluency—particularly with regard to his listening comprehension. I asked Hiro to tell me more about his experience and we decided together that he might feel better about his classes if his professors spoke more slowly to him. I immediately contacted his teachers (with Hiro’s permission) and shared his concerns. They all agreed to slow their speech and check with Hiro regularly about his comprehension for the rest of the term. Hiro soon felt more comfortable in his courses and decided to re-enroll in his second semester. He did well in his classes and chose to stay in the United States for the summer break. In fact, he planned a summer journey during which he would see many parts of the country and use his photography skills to build a collection of pictures he could use in his English teaching when he returned to Japan. Hiro bought a summer bus pass that would allow him unlimited travel around the country. He loaded his bike, his camera, and a backpack of clothing and set off to look for America (a phrase borrowed from a Paul Simon song). He planned to travel from town to town, get off the bus with his bike to visit an area in depth, and then reboard the bus when he was ready to move on. During his summer adventure, Hiro spent hours and hours on the bus, talking and listening to strangers—people from all different walks of life, of different ethnicities and ages, and from different regions of the country. Presumably he experienced many variations of the same conversation (Where are you from? Where are you going? What do you like about our country?), hearing different regional and social varieties of English in the process. In addition, as in my Spanish conversations with the Colombian taxi drivers in New York, there was no great risk involved in Hiro’s English conversations with his seatmates. They had no power over him or any long-term relationship with him. They would get off the bus at their own stops and go on with their lives, leaving Hiro to continue with his journey. That experience—so different from lectures and seminar discussions about abstract topics—gave Hiro the practice and the boost in his confidence and his listening fluency that he needed to be a highly competent L2 listener. He successfully completed his MA and returned to Japan to teach English again. Hiro’s situation has been partially but aptly described by Goodwin (2014), who referred to “a rarely discussed negative consequence of acquiring a native-like L2 accent: the expectation of a native-like understanding of the culture as well” (p. 143). Although Goodwin referred to gaps in culture knowledge, I believe the observation applied to our misguided expectations of Hiro’s listening comprehension as well.

9.5 Challenges As noted above, a very interesting challenge in teaching for speaking and listening fluency is the fact that promoting fluency and focusing on accuracy can work against each other. As Walqui and van Lier (2010) stated, fluency and accuracy have often been juxtaposed—both as research concepts and as lesson goals. Another interesting challenge is that, depending on their goals and language learning history, some learners will not see the value of developing fluency if they feel that accuracy is the most important feature of L2 speaking.

Speaking and Listening Fluency

135

I have often taught a course in public speaking for upper-intermediate and advanced L2 speakers of English. In one such course, an older student complained to me at the end of the first week of the fifteen-week semester. He was very concerned because he was aware that I had not corrected all of the students’ grammar errors during the first week of the class. He believed very strongly that effective language teaching and learning involved eliminating errors, particularly grammar errors. But, as we talked, it became clear that he also thought it was important for teachers to deal with pronunciation and vocabulary problems as well. He shared with me that his teachers had corrected every error their students made. What I found fascinating about that conversation was that this student’s grammatical accuracy was quite strong. He was clearly monitoring his speech for correctness; however, in spite of my years of experience as an English teacher, I found listening to him to be very difficult. Trying to converse with him was uncomfortable initially, and soon it became excruciating. His speech, though accurate in terms of English grammar, was so halting and so stilted that I could hardly follow his ideas. This situation illustrates the point made by Brown and Lee (2015), that “for adults, automaticity is sometimes impeded by over-analysis of language forms” (p. 68). I am sure this student’s English admissions test scores were high since he had been admitted to graduate school. Nevertheless, his extreme attention to correctness greatly hampered his ability to carry on a conversation. His comment about his prior English language education reminded me that “the classroom context often provides limited and insufficient opportunities for L2 practice” (Tavakoli et al., 2016, p. 466). Unfortunately, this story doesn’t have a happy ending. The student continued to be dissatisfied even though I did implement some error-correction strategies in the following week. In doing so, I focused on explaining a few pronunciation and grammar problems exhibited by several students, instead of singling out individual speakers, and then provided brief practice activities. But the concerned student dropped the course at the end of the second week, and I lost track of him. The point is that, depending on students’ beliefs about language learning and use, emphasizing fluency may not seem like good teaching. I regret that I was not able to better explain my rationale to that student or to accommodate his views more sympathetically.

9.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter, we have examined the construct of fluency, primarily as it relates to L2 speaking, but with some attention to listening fluency as well. We considered some of the characteristics and components of fluency, as well as the relationships between fluency, accuracy, and complexity. I want to close this chapter with this encouraging quote from Bohlke (2014): Fluency is not an absolute value that learners either have or don’t have. It is, rather, a matter of degree. All learners can achieve a level or degree of fluency, and the teacher has an opportunity as well as a responsibility to help his or her students develop this important area of communication. (p. 134)

I hope the following discussion questions and tasks will help you apply the concepts presented here to your own language learning and teaching experiences.

136

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Discussion Questions 1 Have you experienced the feeling of being more or less fluent depending on the context in which you were using a new language? If so, under what circumstances did you feel you were more fluent? When did you feel less fluent? 2 Thinking about the experience of feeling fluent, when did your perception primarily relate to understanding L2 speech? What were the circumstances when you felt more or less fluent when you were in the listener’s role? 3 Did any of your language teachers ever focus on activities or lessons specifically on fluency? If so, how did the students respond? What did you learn? 4 Have you ever personally experienced the dynamic tension among fluency, accuracy, and complexity? If so, what were the circumstances? What were the outcomes?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Identify someone whom you consider to be a fluent L2 speaker. What makes you feel that way? Make a list of the speech characteristics that led to your impression of fluency. Compare them to the characteristics of fluency described in this chapter. 2 Find out if that L2 speaker has any strategies for increasing the appearance of fluency. Compare your findings with those of a classmate or colleague who has also conducted such an interview. 3 Plan a fluency-focused speaking lesson that would be appropriate for your (future) language students. Use the phases of awareness-raising, improvement strategies, and practice opportunities to structure the lesson plan. 4 Design a 4–3–2 activity that would be appropriate for your (future) students. Try it with a proficient speaker of your TL. Ask that person about his or her experience of trying to communicate the same amount of information in decreasing amounts of time. 5 Next, try the 4–3–2 activity with a few language learners. Contrast their performance with that of the proficient speaker. What differences are observable in the data? 6 Choose an animated video of a brief story that would be familiar to your (future) students. With the sound muted, have a proficient speaker of the TL narrate the video. Record the narration. Ask the speaker about the experience. 7 Have a language learner do the video narration task. How does the learner’s output compare to that of the proficient speaker? (Think about fluency, accuracy, and complexity.)

Speaking and Listening Fluency

137

  Suggested Readings ●●

●● ●●

●● ●●

●●

Perspectives on Fluency (Riggenbach, 2000) provides a collection of research reports on L2 fluency. The first chapter (Koponen & Riggenbach, 2000) gives a good overview of how fluency has been defined in recent years. Nation and Newton’s (2008) book also has an excellent chapter on fluency. The article by Tavakoli et al. (2016) provides a very good review of research on speaking fluency, in addition to reporting on these researchers’ own study. The research reports by Segalowitz (2000, 2007, 2010, 2012) cited here are clear and informative. New Ways in Teaching Speaking (Vorholt, 2019) has thirty-four activities on developing fluency. It also has fourteen activities on developing accuracy. For an example of a brief skit in English that your students could perform, or that you could translate into another language, see Bailey (2005, pp. 50–51).

  Technological Tools ●●

●●

Audacity is a digital tool that can be used both to record and to edit audio texts (speaking, singing, reading aloud, etc.). Playback can be slowed. The TIRF website provides free downloadable reference lists on fluency and story retelling.

138

Chapter 10 Teaching Pronunciation in a Second or Foreign Language

10.1 Introduction Teaching pronunciation is one of the most important issues in L2 speaking and listening courses, and of course in courses that focus entirely on pronunciation. Learners’ pronunciation in a second or foreign language is often a sensitive issue, since it can be related to their national, regional, social, and/ or ethnic identity. Yet teachers and language learners cannot avoid pronunciation issues: They can be sources of communication breakdowns and can trigger negative evaluations of speakers. This chapter focuses on defining, explaining, and exemplifying some key issues in pronunciation teaching, including accentedness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility, as important aspects of L2 speaking proficiency. Some relevant research on attitudes toward accented speech will be considered as well. We will also briefly examine the speech sounds, focusing first on segmental phonemes and then on suprasegmental phonemes. We will also consider some typical procedures for determining learners’ pronunciation problems.

Guiding Questions 1 What is meant by the phrase phoneme-grapheme correspondence? 2 What are segmental phonemes and suprasegmental phonemes? 3 What are the key characteristics of vowels? 4 What are the key characteristics of consonants? 5 What is accentedness? What judgments do listeners make on the basis of speakers’ accents? 6 What is the difference between intelligibility and comprehensibility?

10.2 What We Know Our views of teaching pronunciation have changed radically in recent decades. Historically, some teaching methods have emphasized native-like pronunciation much more than others. For instance, the Audiolingual Method “put a premium on accurate production at both the segmental and prosodic levels,

140

Teaching Listening and Speaking

using an approach that required extensive repetition of sentence-length utterances after native speaker models” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 77). Given the advent of communicative language teaching, however, having a native-like accent is no longer emphasized as much as it once was. “Today, L2 pronunciation pedagogy has the objective of helping learners achieve overall intelligibility rather than drastic accent modification” (Hinkel, 2006, p. 116). The goal of achieving native-like pronunciation has also decreased as languages are used more frequently for inter-group communication. That is, talking with TL native speakers is not always the primary goal of language learners focusing on speaking and listening.

10.2.1 Phoneme-grapheme Correspondence Let us begin with a basic understanding of some key concepts. As we saw in Chapter 1, phonemes are meaning-bearing units of sound. In talking about phonemes, we must first distinguish between the graphemes (the symbols used to represent speech in writing), and phonemic symbols (the codified way of uniquely representing individual sounds). Some languages have a high phoneme-grapheme correspondence: The written symbols are closely related to the spoken sounds. Other languages have a low phoneme-grapheme correspondence. In other words, a particular sound can be represented by many different graphemes, and some graphemes can represent several different sounds. As Hedgcock and Ferris (2018) note: “An ‘ideal’ phonographic system would involve one-to-one phoneme-grapheme correspondence” (p. 19). They describe the relationships of writing systems and phonemic properties of languages as falling on a continuum of opaque to transparent. These authors classify the orthographies of Korean, Serbian, and Turkish as transparent, because they have high phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Other languages are more opaque, including English, Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Finally, logographic systems, including Chinese Hanzza and Japanese Kanji, are extremely opaque. This issue of phoneme-grapheme correspondence is important for language teachers in at least three ways. First, learning to read in opaque languages is challenging, and it can be particularly so for learners whose L1s are transparent. Second, learning to spell in opaque languages can be extremely difficult. Third, as teachers we must share information about pronunciation with our learners, and help them understand the differences between spoken sounds and written representations of those sounds. Because of the differences between spoken sounds and the written representations thereof, in 1888 the International Phonetic Association created the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)—a symbol system designed to represent the sounds of all spoken languages. A search on the internet for the Interactive IPA Chart will lead you to a tool that shows the symbols for the phonemes of many languages. It includes corresponding recordings of those sounds.

10.2.2 Segmental Phonemes Understanding and producing TL sounds are vital in learning a new language. The two main categories of segmental phonemes are vowels and consonants. The basic distinction between the two is that, in the production of vowels, the air stream exiting the vocal tract is shaped but largely unobstructed. As consonants are produced, the air stream is obstructed, sometimes partially, sometimes completely.

Teaching Pronunciation in an SL or FL

141

10.2.2.1 Vowels Let’s start with the vowels. These sounds are categorized in terms of where they are produced in the mouth, and as being tense or lax. Tense vowels “are articulated with more muscle tension than lax vowels” (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010, p. 117). Vowels are shaped by the position of the tongue as they are produced. Picture a side view of your own head as you produce the vowels of a language you know. Think of the mouth (the oral cavity) as having two dimensions: high to low and front to back, where “front” refers to the area near your teeth. A rough map of where vowels are produced is shown in Table 10.1. The grid in Table 10.1 is actually the basis for what is called the sagittal section of the mouth. That image is a cut-away diagram of the side view of the human head, which can be used to explain the production of speech sounds. Other factors that influence vowel sounds are whether or not the speaker’s lips are rounded, neutral, or spread. For instance, the /o/ sound in hope and the /u/ sound in hoop are rounded vowels, but the vowel /ɔ/ in hop is not rounded. As you can see from this over-simplified description, producing vowel sounds is actually quite complicated. Furthermore, the inventory of vowel phonemes can differ greatly from one language to another.

Table 10.1  The Vowel Map Front high

Mid high

Back high

Front central

Mid central

Back central

Front low

Mid low

Back low

10.2.2.2 Consonants Consonants are no less complex! They are characterized by how and where the air flow is obstructed as sounds are produced. Knowing the main features of consonant production can help us understand the challenges language learners face. One key contrast to understand is the combination of place and manner of articulation. The place of articulation is the point at which the airstream is obstructed—the lips, the teeth, the alveolar ridge, the palate, the velum, the uvula, the pharynx, or the glottis. In some cases, a combination of points is involved in producing a consonant. For example, producing the sounds /p/ and /b/ involves both lips, so these phonemes are called bilabial phonemes. In contrast, producing /f/ and /v/ entails the connection of the upper teeth and the lower lip, so they are called labio-dental phonemes. These places of articulation work in tandem with various manners of articulation—variations in the way sounds are produced. For instance, in producing the /p/ and /b/ sounds, the air stream is temporarily stopped and then released, so these sounds are called plosives or stops, because the air is suddenly released in a small explosion. Other English stops are /t/ and /d/, and /k/ and /g/. You will have noticed that this list of consonants is organized in pairs. In the first partner of the pair, /p/, /f/, /t/, and /k/, the speaker’s vocal chords are not vibrating as the sound is produced, so these sounds are called voiceless phonemes. In the second part of the pair, /b/, /v/, /d/, and /g/, the vocal chords are vibrating, so these sounds are referred to as voiced phonemes. In the production of other

142

Teaching Listening and Speaking

consonants, the airstream isn’t completely stopped, but it is impeded in a process that involves friction. For instance, in producing the labio-dental consonants /f/ and /v/, the airstream is impeded but is not completely stopped. As a result, friction is produced as the airstream escapes from the oral cavity. For this reason, /f/ and /v/ are called fricatives. Other fricatives include the sounds spelled by -th- in English. The voiceless -th- sound, as in the words thin and bath, is represented by the symbol /θ/, which is called thorn. The voiced sound, as in the words then and bathe, is represented by the symbol /ð/, called eth (or edh). Another important pair of fricatives is often represented by the spelling -s- and -z-. These sounds appear in the words sue and zoo and are represented by the phonemic symbols /s/ and /z/, respectively. In making these sounds, the tongue is at the alveolar ridge, so they are called alveolar fricatives. If you move your tongue back a bit and say the words assure or azure, you will hear the postalveolar fricatives, represented by the symbols /ʃ/ and /ʒ/. Yet another fricative in English is /h/, the initial sound in hot and happy. It is called a glottal fricative, because the place of articulation is in the glottis. It is a voiceless fricative. Some consonant sounds combine a stop and a fricative. In English, these sounds are typically spelled as -ch- and -j- or -dge- as in church and judge. They are represented by the phonemic symbols /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/, because they involve a stop followed by a fricative. These sounds are called affricates. Like plosives and fricatives, affricates are realized in voiceless and voiced pairs. Another group of consonants are called nasals, because the airstream flows through the nose as speech is produced. In English, these sounds are /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/, the final phonemes of the words dim, din, and ding. There are two other groups of consonants, called the liquids and glides. In English, the liquids are those sounds often represented in spelling by the letters -l- and -r-, the initial sounds in light and right. The glides, which are also called semivowels, are represented by the phonemic symbols /j/, /w/, and /ʍ/. These are the initial sounds in yellow, witch, and which, respectively. This section has provided a very brief overview of the place and manner of articulation of several important consonants. But I must point out that here I have only considered those consonants that are English phonemes. There are several other consonants that are phonemes in other languages of the world. Given this complexity, you can imagine the challenges language learners face! We haven’t even begun to consider the constraints on how phonemes combine to form syllables. An important issue is that some languages have what is called an open syllable structure. That is, most syllables end in vowels rather than consonants. For learners from such native languages, learning to produce the closed syllable structure can be difficult. Some languages permit consonant clusters, in which two, three, or even four consonants are juxtaposed. English examples include the initial and final clusters in strengths and pranced. For students who come from languages that don’t use consonant clusters, learning to produce them can be very challenging. For example, Derwing and Munro (2015) report that “English allows over 150 final consonants and consonant clusters, versus six to eight singleton consonants in Vietnamese” (p. 145).

10.2.3 Suprasegmental Phonemes As we saw in Chapter 1, the suprasegmental phonemes are those meaning-bearing sounds that are superimposed upon the segmental phonemes. They include stress, pitch, and intonation. Celce-Murcia,

Teaching Pronunciation in an SL or FL

143

Brinton, and Goodwin (2010) say that mastery of the suprasegmental phonemes is more important than having good pronunciation in terms of the segmental phonemes. In particular, if language learners use the wrong intonation patterns, “they may be perceived as abrupt or even rude; and if the stress and rhythm patterns are too nonnativelike, the speakers who produce them may not be understood at all” (p. 163).

10.2.3.1 Syllable Stress Stress is the amount of emphasis placed on a syllable. Stress consists of “increased vowel duration, increased volume, and a change in pitch” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 181). Stress is part of prominence: “which word the speaker wishes to highlight” (p. 223). It is typically used in three situations: to “(1) highlight new or important information in an utterance; (2) place special emphasis; and (3) show contrast” (p. 226). Stress conveys meaning by indicating importance. For instance, imagine the difference between these two sentences: 1 John is not invited to the party. 2 John is NOT invited to the party. The first is a statement of fact. The second strongly implies that John is not welcome. The words and the word order are the same. The meaning difference is carried by the stress. Two types of stress are used to convey meaning. Emphatic stress occurs when the speaker wants to stress a particular word or syllable (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010), as in the second sentence above. In contrastive stress, “two parallel elements can receive prominence within a given utterance, either explicitly or by implication” (p. 223). For example, consider the response to the question asked by someone at the door of a classroom: “Is this the beginning French class?” “No, this is the SPANISH class.” Contrastive stress is often used to correct or clarify a listener’s understanding.

10.2.3.2 Pitch Pitch is another important suprasegmental phoneme. Technically, pitch is the “perceptual correlate of sound frequency determined by the rate of vibration of the vocal folds” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 180). The idea of pitch in linguistics is similar to its meaning in singing. That is, our voice can be higher or lower as we produce various words and syllables. For instance, the syllables in the word photography cover three different pitches: topho-   gra    phy. According to Celce-Murcia et al. (2010), English has four levels of pitch: level 1 is low, level 2 is middle, level 3 is high, and level 4 is extra high. In the word photography, the syllables are spoken at levels 2–3–2–1. These authors state that in English “normal conversation moves between low and high pitch, with final low or high pitch signaling the end of an utterance” (p. 330). Pitch is also meaning-bearing. In some cases, pitch distinguishes two nouns. For instance, there is a meaning difference between “the white house” (on the corner) and “the White House” (in Washington, DC). The former phrase is typically spoken at pitch levels 2–2–3, while the latter is usually said at levels 2–3–2.

144

Teaching Listening and Speaking

10.2.3.3 Intonation What is the relationship between pitch and intonation? “If pitch represents the individual tone of speech, then intonation can be thought of in terms of the entire melodic line” (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 231). Think of the same sentence said with three different intonation contours: 1.  That’s just perfect. (statement of fact) 2.  That’s just perfect! (enthusiastic statement) 3.  That’s just perfect. (sarcastic statement)

As these sentences show, intonation can be an indicator of the speaker’s attitude. Intonation also serves other functions, such as indicating uncertainty or requesting confirmation. For example, in English tag questions the rise or fall of the tag can either seek clarification or invite agreement. Think of the sentence: “Juana made the cake, didn’t she?” Although it is written with a question mark, if the tag (“didn’t she”) is spoken with falling intonation, it is seeking affirmation rather than information—perhaps in an interaction about who actually made the cake: “Juana made the cake, didn’t she? I can tell because she always uses cinnamon.” The same sentence said with rising intonation is asking for clarification or confirmation. In this case the speaker is less certain.

10.2.4 Accentedness There are three key concepts we must understand in discussing pronunciation. The most familiar is accent: “a particular pattern of pronunciation that is perceived to distinguish members of different speech communities” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 5). Accents consist of a range of speech characteristics, including the production of segmental and suprasegmental phonemes. Accents can be associated with region and/or social class, and, in the case of language learners, with the apparent influence of the first language on the production of the TL. That influence is called transfer. It is clear that “repeatedly, researchers have found that listeners employ stereotypes to ascribe features to unseen speakers, solely on the basis of their accents” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 133). By association with past experience (whether through interpersonal interaction or through films or television), such speech characteristics can lead listeners to conclusions about the speakers’ first language, country or region of origin, ethnicity, and social class. Unfortunately, “accent is a filter through which second language (L2) speakers are viewed and frequently discriminated against” (Goodwin, 2014, p. 136). For example, research by Munro (2003) identified prevalent kinds of discrimination based on accentedness: hiring, employment, housing, and individual harassment regarding accent. Such stereotyping happens when listeners make judgments about a person “even when they know nothing about that speaker as an individual” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 17). These authors add that “foreign accents do not ‘cause’ prejudice. Rather, when listeners hear and recognize non-native patterns of speech, their previously internalized attitudes and feelings about immigrants, foreigners, or ‘outsiders’ may be evoked” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, pp. 17–18).

Teaching Pronunciation in an SL or FL

145

10.2.5 Intelligibility It is important to note that accentedness and intelligibility are not the same thing. Speakers whose speech is accented can often communicate effectively (Derwing & Munro, 2015). Thus, a very important concept for language teachers to understand is intelligibility: “the degree of match between a speaker’s intended message and the listener’s comprehension” of that message (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 5). As Lazaraton (2014) notes: “If the goal of pronunciation instruction is successful communication, then it is essential to understand that being intelligible is not synonymous with being accent-free” (p. 143; italics in the original). In fact, in recent years, teachers have viewed helping learners to achieve nativelike accents as less important than helping them to be understood (Hinkel, 2006). This view is part of communicative language teaching, whereas attaining a native-like accent was important in the Audiolingual Method and in the Silent Way.

10.2.6 Comprehensibility This point leads to the third key concept, comprehensibility: “the ease or difficulty a listener experiences in understanding an utterance” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 5). Here, understanding is not a matter of what is being talked about because anyone can have difficulty understanding spoken texts about unfamiliar topics. Instead, whether or not speech is comprehensible refers to our ability to understand the speech stream, rather than the concepts being discussed. There are various possible combinations of accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. For instance, if accentedness is low and intelligibility is high, it means that an utterance can be easily understood, that is, comprehensibility is also high. There are also situations in which L2 speech is heavily accented and intelligibility is very low. In other words, the speech is not understood because the accent is so strong or so unfamiliar. In that context, comprehensibility is also low. But we must also acknowledge that there are situations where accentedness is high (that is, the speech is noticeably accented), but intelligibility is also high. In other words, even if speakers’ utterances are heavily accented, the listeners can easily understand the message (i.e., comprehensibility is high). This situation can occur for various reasons other than the characteristics of the utterance. For example, the listeners may be very familiar with the speakers’ first language, or with the speakers’ accent in the TL. In other speech situations, the context may clarify the message.

10.2.7 Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis Much of what has been written about pronunciation teaching has dealt with how to determine the focus of instruction. Two major historical approaches are contrastive analysis and error analysis. Even though they have limitations, they also have some value. There was a time when language lessons and entire course syllabi were based on contrastive analysis, a procedure that involves comparing the features of the learners’ first language with those of their TL. The focus of such comparisons was often on phonemes, morphemes, vocabulary, or syntax. The underlying assumption was that differences between the L1 and the L2 were likely to cause problems

146

Teaching Listening and Speaking

that should be addressed in lessons. Contrastive analysis was associated with the Audiolingual Method and behaviorism; however, it is still useful in some regards, particularly in identifying pronunciation issues related to segmental phonemes. There are three main problems with contrastive analysis, however. Sometimes it suggests difficulties that don’t actually occur (over-prediction). In other cases, problems occur that contrastive analysis does not predict (under-prediction). These latter problems are referred to as intra-lingual errors: difficulties apparently caused by the properties of the TL, rather than by differences between the L1 and the L2. Finally, although “contrastive analysis can predict general tendencies for learner error, we have little faith in it accurately predicting a particular learner’s errors” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 22). An alternative approach is called error analysis, in which learners’ spoken output is systematically investigated to identify discrepancies between the learners’ speech and TL forms. Sometimes error analysis is based on natural learner-generated language samples (e.g., in recordings of informal conversations). At other times, language data are elicited through structured tasks. These data can come from reading aloud a text designed to include key phonemes or from more open-ended elicitation procedures. Error analysis is useful, but it too has shortcomings. In a seminal article, Schachter (1974) noted that error analysis could only be conducted on language learners’ writing or speech samples. In fact, L2 speakers could generate speech samples in which they avoided lexical items and grammar structures they did not know or found difficult to produce. In other words, successfully using avoidance strategies could mask language learners’ troublesome areas, although it is unlikely that learners can avoid using segmental and suprasegmental phonemes. We should also note that neither contrastive analysis nor error analysis provide information about the “underlying cognitive processes that lead to communication errors” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 66). They are simply two procedures for determining some areas to focus on to help language learners.

10.2.8 Pronunciation for English as an International Language The importance of intelligibility has influenced a proposal for using “empirically established phonological norms and classroom pronunciation models for English as an international language (EIL)” (Jenkins, 2002, p. 83). Given that EIL frequently involves communication among non-native speakers, having a native-like accent may not matter. Based on substantial research on non-native speaker to non-native speaker interaction, Jenkins proposed what she called “the Lingua Franca Core” (LFC) of a phonologic syllabus. It focuses on teaching phonemes that are most important for intelligibility. For example, accurate production of /θ/ and /ð/ is downplayed, since substitutions (such as /t/ or /d/) for those phonemes are typically understood. The LFC emphasizes the /t/ sound in words such as latter, which often sounds more like ladder in American English. The LFC retains consonant clusters and maintains the intervocalic /nt/ in words like winter, which sometimes sounds like winner in American English. Jenkins’s (2002) research also emphasized the significance of correct pitch and word stress for achieving intelligibility.

Teaching Pronunciation in an SL or FL

147

10.3 Practical Activities In this section, we will consider activities for determining pronunciation difficulties, for raising awareness, and for practicing word-initial phonemes. The examples are in English, but these activities can be adapted for teaching any language.

10.3.1 Read-aloud Tasks for Diagnosis Teachers often have language learners read a text aloud, so they can pinpoint where pronunciation errors occur. A widely used example of this procedure in English pronunciation teaching is called the “Prator Passage” (Prator & Robinett, 1985), which includes all the segmental phonemes and some of the most important suprasegmental features of English. Here’s how it works: 1 Students are given the written text in advance and may ask any questions they have about its vocabulary or syntactic structures or the pronunciation of unfamiliar words. 2 Each student reads the text aloud as the teacher records the reading. 3 Later, the teacher replays the audio-recording while marking deviations from the native speaker norm on a copy of the text. 4 The patterned differences between the learners’ pronunciation and the expected L2 pronunciation provide the focal points for class lessons or for individual tutoring. This kind of text is an example of an error-analysis procedure. Its use can inform syllabus design, lesson planning, and follow-up activities. If you are working in an FL context where your students share a common mother tongue, there is another procedure you can use. Based on the assumptions of contrastive analysis, it is also possible to design a passage that targets differences between a specific L1 and the L2. Here is an example based on predicted difficulties of Spanish L1 speakers producing English utterances. Buddy always pulled up a chair to watch his father wash and shave. He saw him spread the hot lather with a wet, yellow brush and then zip off the whiskers with a cheap razor that looked just like tin to him. Buddy would wait to see if the thin blade cut his father’s face, yet it never did. Sometimes his father would even sing in his gravelly voice as he pulled the sharp razor across his skin. Once Buddy thought he spotted blood and was thrilled. But later he felt bad because he was sure it was a sin to have these thoughts. (Galvan, Pierce, & Underwood, 1976, p. 20)

These authors found that hearing just the first two sentences of this text was sufficient to elicit native speakers’ reactions to Spanish-accented English. This finding suggests that listeners can make judgments about L2 speakers based on very brief speech samples. These kinds of tools are useful but we should note that, although learners with a common mother tongue may share pronunciation challenges, “many issues may be idiosyncratic—not all speakers of even the same dialect of a given L1 will necessarily experience the same pronunciation problems” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 99). Another concern about using read-aloud procedures to determine

148

Teaching Listening and Speaking

pronunciation difficulties is that learners are likely to pay close attention to their articulation as they read aloud. That sort of attention may not be available for focusing on pronunciation if speakers are trying to convey meaning in everyday conversations. Thus, we cannot be sure that the data we get from read-aloud tasks or monitored speech samples actually represent students’ normal pronunciation.

10.3.2 Awareness-raising Activities Many of the pedagogical frameworks we have considered in this book have emphasized the importance of awareness-raising. This focus is equally important in pronunciation teaching. As teachers of speaking and listening, we can certainly raise students’ awareness of pronunciation issues through explanation; however, I believe that experience can be a better tool for leading to students’ realizations. Here is an example. Professor Aya Matsuda has described an activity for helping English learners (and teachers) understand the characteristics of the English vowel system. (The activity is described in Bailey and Krishnan, 2016, p. 224.) She gave each student a flat lollipop and had them say words with different vowel sounds with the lollipops in their mouths. The students then described the tongue movement involved in producing the various vowels. The presence of the lollipop dramatically showed the students the importance of tongue position in vowel production. This next suggestion may seem strange, and I am not trying to promote stereotyping. Nor do I have any research evidence about the possible effectiveness of this procedure, but this technique has sometimes led to awareness-raising for my English students. With L1 speakers of Spanish trying to improve their English pronunciation, I have occasionally asked them to say a Spanish utterance using an extreme American accent. This process often causes a great deal of laughter, but hearing themselves adopt an American accent in speaking their L1 has caused realizations about pronunciation differences that were not so meaningful in more academic explanations. The next step was to have my learners keep that American accent in mind as they produced English utterances. My opinion is that they were better able to produce some of the English segmental phonemes and intonation contours as a result of this silly exercise.

10.3.3 Alliteration Game A fun activity that can help learners detect and produce word-initial phonemes is the alliteration game. Given a context, learners think of two or more words that begin with the same sound. For instance, what are some things you would find in a refrigerator? Working individually or in pairs, students generate ideas like “yummy yogurt” and “leafy lettuce.” If your learners are literate or have emerging literacy, they can note that letters and sounds are not always the same. For example, the words “useful yogurt” start with the same sound even though their initial letters differ. The contexts you choose should be familiar to your learners. Children can identify things found in a schoolroom or playground while adults can talk about things found in a factory, an office, or a grocery store. You can make the game a competition if you like. Students receive one point for alliterative words (“yummy yogurt”) but two or more points for longer phrases (“useful yummy yogurt”). To make sure the students are listening to one another, however, points should only be given for novel ideas; repeating

Teaching Pronunciation in an SL or FL

149

something that has already been said can cost a point. The purpose of this game is to practice identifying and generating word-initial phonemes. It doesn’t have to be a serious process. Students could say “lovely lemons,” but they could also say “laughing lemons” or even “lovely little laughing lemons.” If consonant clusters are a challenge for your learners, you can specify pairs of consonants or even three consonants in a cluster. For example, with L1 Spanish learners of English, the clusters /sp/ and /st/ are often pronounced with an initial vowel inserted to break up the consonant cluster. With those learners, names of things found in kitchens could include “special spices,” “steamy string beans,” and “sticky stove.” If you want your students to practice with particular initial phonemes or consonant clusters, you can put those sounds on slips of paper and have the learners generate phrases with the sounds they draw out of a hat, instead of deciding themselves on the sounds to produce.

10.4 Reflections In Chapter 2, I shared with you some recollections of my time in Korea as the wife of a US Army soldier. While I was there I learned very rudimentary survival Korean, which I used in the market, with taxi drivers, and with my neighbors in the village. That immersion experience was amazing for me, particularly since I had not been a stellar student in my earlier FL classes. When I returned to the United States, I enrolled in a graduate program to learn about teaching English as an SL or FL. One of my classmates was a Korean woman whose family had immigrated to the United States. We were working on a class project together, and one day I needed to call her at home. She had told me she lived with her parents and her grandmother, and that her parents spoke English but her grandmother did not. Of course, when I called, it was the grandmother who answered the phone. I was able to ask her in Korean if my classmate was there (a very simple and well-rehearsed question). In her rapid-fire response, I could understand that my friend was not at home but would be back later. The grandmother also said some other things I didn’t understand at all. I thanked her in Korean and then told her in English that I would call back later. I didn’t know how to express the future or talk about telephone calls in Korean, because life in my village had never involved telephoning. Nor had I ever learned how to indicate the future, other than dropping the Korean word for tomorrow into whatever I was saying. When I saw my classmate at school the next day, she asked me if I had called her at home. I told her yes, and she laughed and told me her grandmother’s account of the phone call. Her grandmother said that a Korean lady had called and asked for her, but then an American lady got on the phone and said something in English. Upon hearing my friend’s report of her grandmother’s impressions, I was inordinately pleased to have been mistaken for a native speaker of Korean by a native speaker of Korean. But this reaction raises a question: Why did the grandmother think I was a native speaker, based on a single question asked via telephone? Let’s start with the likelihood that the grandmother probably expected phone calls at home to be from Koreans. Second, my single utterance was a question that someone would expect when answering a phone. Third, we should note that the one question I asked was one that I had heard and uttered many times in Korea: “Is/are [noun(s)] there/here?” It seems that, under these circumstances, my pronunciation was good enough that I would be mistaken for a native speaker of Korean. But,

150

Teaching Listening and Speaking

like Hiro’s case in Chapter 9, my listening comprehension wasn’t strong enough to understand the grandmother’s extremely fluent response to even my very basic question, without the support of visual clues or context.

10.5 Challenges In Chapter 6, we considered language anxiety. Here we should add that “speakers with a strong L2 accent or low-prestige L1 pronunciation may feel considerable apprehension each time they engage with a new interlocutor because they cannot predict how the communicative exchange will go” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 2). Another challenge in teaching L2 pronunciation concerns age. Both research and folk beliefs suggest that young language learners are more likely to attain native-like accents than older learners: “Adult learners do not typically acquire native-like pronunciation, even after years of experience with the second language and an otherwise high level of proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, and writing” (p. 31). This generalization does not mean that adult learners cannot attain nativelike accents. The case of “Julie” (Ioup et al., 1994) is an example. Julie was a native speaker of English who attained a native-like accent in Egyptian Arabic as an adult, through intense naturalistic exposure and interactions. An interesting sociological and psychological issue is the relationship of our accents and our identity. For most people, the way we speak reveals information about us, including where we are from (both regionally and nationally), and sometimes our social class, ethnicity, and level of education. Unfortunately, “in highly class-conscious situations, upward social mobility can depend on speakers’ willingness to modify their production so as to sound like the people with whom they choose to identify” (Derwing & Munro, 2015, p. 17). It is thought that “some aspects of pronunciation are volitional” (p. 140). That is, they are under the speaker’s control while others are not. We project parts of our identity through our speech characteristics, including pronunciation, and we may be able to control some of our pronunciation; however, Derwing and Munro (2015) acknowledge that “it is not always possible to acquire the identity one might wish for, particularly in the case of L2 pronunciation” (p. 140).

10.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter, we have briefly considered the characteristics of segmental and suprasegmental phonemes. We discussed accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. A key point here is refocusing our efforts as teachers on helping learners improve their intelligibility and understanding that intelligibility can be high even in cases where the L2 speech is noticeably accented. We also noted that stereotyping can be triggered by accented speech. Fortunately, research tells us that learners can improve their accents and become more intelligible. As Lazaraton (2014) concludes, “pronunciation instruction has been shown to be effective, particularly if it is contextualized, addresses both form and meaning, includes feedback, [and] contains a strong listening component” (p. 144).

Teaching Pronunciation in an SL or FL

151

  Discussion Questions 1 While trying to communicate in a new language, have you experienced a situation in which your own pronunciation led to a misunderstanding, or even a communication breakdown? What was the context? What did you do? What was the outcome? 2 What has been your attitude to pronunciation when you were learning a new language? Did you want to sound like a native speaker of that language or did having a native-like accent not matter so much to you? Why? 3 Have you ever experienced stereotyping based on accent? That is, did you ever evaluate a speaker based on his or her accent? Were you ever aware of people’s responses to your own accent? 4 Thinking about your own challenges in learning the sound system of a new language, do you think a contrastive analysis of your TL and your L1 would have correctly predicted the sounds that were most difficult to attain? Why or why not? 5 Are you aware of any attitudes you may hold regarding speakers from first language backgrounds other than your own as they use your first language as their TL? If so, are those attitudes positive, negative, or neutral? Why?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Interview someone who has learned or is learning a new language as an adult. Ask that person about his or her goals for pronunciation accuracy. What factors influence(d) his or her hopes? 2 If you are working (or hope to work) with learners from a particular L1, find or conduct a mini-contrastive analysis of the sound system of the students’ L1 and the TL. What information does it provide about how to help your students improve their pronunciation? 3 Based on that contrastive analysis, choose a few segmental phonemes that could be learning points for a lesson plan. Determine the objectives of the lesson and develop some activities to achieve your goals. 4 Write two texts that you could use as diagnostic passages for learners of the language you (plan to) teach. One should be based on the needs of learners from a variety of home languages. The other should be based on the needs of learners from a particular first language background. Make sure that the grammar structures and vocabulary in the text are familiar to your learners. 5 Think about a phoneme in your teaching language that is typically difficult for learners to master. Draft a lesson plan to help your students learn how to use that sound in speech. Share your lesson plan with another teacher.

152

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●●

An excellent resource for learning about teaching pronunciation is Derwing and Munro’s (2015) book, Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-based Perspectives for L2 Teaching and Research. I also rely on Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). It contains detailed explanations and many practical activities. A very fine chapter about teaching pronunciation is by Goodwin (2014). She summarizes research findings and clearly explains teaching ideas.

●●

Vorholt’s (2019) edited book includes fourteen chapters on pronunciation teaching techniques.

●●

Kelly’s (2000) book, How to Teach Pronunciation, is a great source of practical ideas.

  Technological Tools ●●

●●

●●

●● ●●

The University of Iowa has an excellent resource for teaching pronunciation. Search for “Sounds of Speech” on the University of Iowa website, and you will find pronunciation support for learners of Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and English. For each segmental phoneme, there is a sagittal section and a video of someone producing the sound. If you search the internet for the Speech Accent Archive, you will find a website that has nearly 3,000 samples of people with different accents reading the same English text. The free audio-recording and editing tool called Audacity can be very helpful for teaching and assessing pronunciation. It is easy to use and works with at least four dozen languages besides English. Learners can record themselves and the recordings can be saved and sent as MP3 files. Please visit the TIRF website for reference lists on pronunciation, accentedness, intonation, and prosody. For a brief talk introducing the IPA in clear terms, search the internet for “Phonetics: The Periodic Table of Speech Sounds.” The website of the International Phonetics Association is also very helpful.

Chapter 11 Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

11.1 Introduction Teachers and linguists have long known that communicating successfully in a second or foreign language goes well beyond having good grammar, adequate vocabulary, and intelligible pronunciation. Knowing how to use language effectively and appropriately to get things done is also extremely important in learning a new language. This focus is broadly an issue of pragmatics—the topic of this chapter. Being successful in the areas encompassed within pragmatics is essential to successfully mastering a new language.

Guiding Questions 1 What is meant by pragmatics? What is pragmatic competence? Why are these concepts important in second and foreign language development? 2 What are speech events and speech situations? 3 What are speech acts? 4 What are locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary meaning?

We must acknowledge that speaking appropriately is partly a matter of context and the participants involved in that context. Linguistic competence alone is not enough: Clearly “language learners also have to consider pragmatic demands during communication. Basic pragmatic demands include speakers’ assessment of the relationship between themselves and their listeners, as well as the interactional and social contexts in which their speech is produced” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 39). For this reason, this chapter will begin with an explanation of pragmatics and pragmatic competence, followed by a discussion of speech events, speech situations, and speech acts.

11.2 What We Know Pragmatics has been defined as “the ability to act and interact by means of language” (Kasper & Roever, 2005, p. 317). As a theoretical and research focus, pragmatics is “the study of communicative

154

Teaching Listening and Speaking

action in sociocultural contexts” (Kasper & Rose, 2001, p. 2). Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) add that “pragmatics is also concerned with contexts, situations, and settings within which such language uses occur” (p. 19). In other words, pragmatics is both a part of language ability and the study thereof.

11.2.1 Pragmatic Competence Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) build upon these definitions when they say that pragmatic competence involves using language “in socioculturally appropriate ways, taking into account the participants in a communicative interaction and features of the context within which the interaction takes place” (pp. 19–20). Fraser, Rintell, and Walters (1980) explain pragmatic knowledge in this way, by asking the following questions about the factors that influence the interpretation of an utterance: What the utterance of a sentence (or sentence segment) means depends on what the sentence means, how the sentence is spoken (Is it spoken with a special intonation? Emphatic stress? With significant pauses?), and the context in which it is spoken (Who is of the greater status? What is the past history of the speaker and hearer? To what extent is the subject matter of mutual concern?). (p. 77)

Thus, successfully interpreting an utterance may go far beyond understanding the speaker’s grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Although linguistic competence consists of “the knowledge required to construct or understand well-formed sentences of the language, pragmatic competence can be viewed as the knowledge required to determine what such sentences mean when spoken in a certain way in a particular context” (p. 77). Developing pragmatic competence is particularly important for language learners in SL contexts, due to the likelihood that native speakers living in their own home countries are likely to expect immigrants, refugees, visitors, and international students to use native speaker norms and adhere to local cultural expectations. Determining norms for pragmatic competence is not as straightforward as it is for grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, however. With linguistic competence, there is usually recognition of correct and incorrect forms, but, with pragmatic competence, such distinctions are not clear-cut.

11.2.2 Speech Events, Speech Situations, and Speech Acts A speech event is a specific type of spoken language that occurs in context. For example, a eulogy occurs at a funeral, while a lecture typically occurs in a classroom. A speech event is defined as “a particular instance when people exchange speech, e.g., an exchange of greetings, an enquiry, a conversation” (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985, p. 267). Richards, Platt, and Weber (1985) note that the norms for communication in various speech events can differ from one speech community to another. In addition, “the structure of speech events varies considerably according to the genre they belong to. The components of a speech event are its setting, the participants and their role relationships, the message, the key, and the channel” (p. 267). There may be some terminological confusion associated with the vocabulary of this topic. The term speech situation is occasionally used interchangeably with speech event, “but usually it refers to any situation which is associated with speech, e.g., a classroom lesson, a party” (Richards et al., 1985,

Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

155

Table 11.1  Examples of Speech Situations, Speech Events, and Speech Acts Speech Situation

Speech Event(s)

Speech Act(s)

Language lesson

Lecture

Explaining, defining, illustrating, etc.

Language lesson

Group work or pair work

Teacher: giving directions. Students: questioning, responding, clarifying, disagreeing, criticizing, etc.

Faculty meeting at school

Plenary session with teachers Calling the meeting to order, approving (and possibly a chairperson) the agenda, making announcements, etc.

Teacher and supervisor meeting Giving evaluative feedback

Supervisor: giving examples, asking questions, critiquing, suggesting, etc. Teacher: answering questions, defending choices, etc.

p. 267). Speech situations sometimes involve only one speech event, but they may also involve several (e.g., at a party, there may be conversations, arguments, and so on). A speech act is “an utterance as a functional unit in communication” (Richards et al., 1985, p. 265). Speech acts are also called speech functions (or just functions) in some publications. They include complimenting, requesting, praising, complaining, warning, etc. In other words, speech situations include speech events and speech acts, though a given speech situation may include just one speech act. Examples of speech situations, speech events, and speech acts are shown in Table 11.1. Some speech acts entail noticeable patterns, which are referred to as speech act sets: “routinized ways in which a given speech act can pattern” (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 113). One example is the structure of apologies. They typically include the basic expression of regret, such as “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” (often formulaic chunks), but they frequently also include the speaker acknowledging some responsibility or culpability, by saying, for instance: “It was all my fault.” Apologies may also include promises that the problem won’t reoccur, offers to fix the problem, and/or excuses or reasons why the problem occurred (e.g., “I promise I won’t do it again,” “I can come early tomorrow,” “my car wouldn’t start”). Many speech acts involve predictable adjacency pairs—first and second turns that are highly routinized and therefore predictable. Examples include compliments and thanks, requests and refusals (or complying), accusations and rebuttals, and so on. Language learners may experience communication difficulties by not supplying an expected response, or by transferring the form of response from their L1 context if it is not appropriate in the L2 context.

11.2.3 Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Meaning Utterances can entail three different sorts of meaning. First, “propositional meaning (also known as locutionary meaning) is the basic literal meaning of the utterance which is conveyed by the particular words and structures which the utterance contains” (Richards et al., 1985, p. 265). So if one person says to another “close the door,” the listener can recognize the structure as an imperative, with the door being the direct object of the verb close.

156

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Another level is called illocutionary meaning, which is the effect the speaker wants to have on the listener. It refers to the “specific force associated with uttering of specific words in a particular context; it is the specific speech act (e.g., warning, request, promise, etc.) that a speaker performs” (Holtgraves & Ashley, 2001, p. 83). So if the listener correctly interprets the other person’s utterance as a directive (the function), he will close the door. Perlocutionary meaning (often called perlocutionary force) is the actual effect on the listener, i.e., “the results or effects that are produced by means of saying something” (Richards et al., 1985, p. 169). For instance, the listener may take offense at being told to close the door. There is more to the relationship between illocutionary meaning and perlocutionary force than simple actions, however. Consider these situations: 1 The room is cold. One person says to the other: “Close the door,” and the listener does so. This situation is relatively neutral. 2 Two teenage girls are giggling in one girl’s bedroom. They can hear their parents talking downstairs. One girl asks the other: “So what happened then?” The response is: “Close the door.” 3 An employee who has been put on probation is called to his employer’s office. As he steps in, the boss says: “Close the door.” 4 As three teenagers are exploring a spooky old house at night, one gasps and says to the others in a strained whisper: “Close the door!” As you can see, the same utterance can have a different social and/or psychological perlocutionary force depending on the context. In the case of the chilly room, the effect may be neutral (unless the listener was responsible for having the room at a warmer temperature, in which case some blame may be intended and/or inferred). With the giggling teenagers, however, the listener will probably realize she is about to hear something the speaker doesn’t want the parents to overhear. The employee on probation may infer that he’s about to be fired. And finally, the teenagers in the creepy house will realize that their friend’s utterance is a warning of imminent disaster that closing the door might prevent or postpone. All of these inferences made by the listeners illustrate the possible perlocutionary force of the same utterance. The different interpretations are conditioned by both speech characteristics (e.g., gasping, whispering, and giggling) and contextual factors. Some speech acts are quite clear while others are mitigated. For example, “Close the door,” and “Please would you close the door?” convey the same message, but the second is much more mitigated: It is phrased as a question and includes the politeness marker please and the modal auxiliary verb would. Thus, the directness of the utterance is softened. Likewise, “It’s chilly in here” carries the same message, but it is very indirect. The locutionary meaning of “it’s chilly in here” is a statement about the temperature of a room. Depending on the context, however, its intended illocutionary force may be to get someone to close the door. If the listener does not do so, it may be because he didn’t interpret the speech act as the speaker intended. “Indirect speech acts are often felt to be more polite ways of performing certain kinds of speech act, such as requests and refusals” (Richards et al., 1985, p. 265). A problem with indirect speech acts, however, is that they can be misinterpreted if the listener doesn’t connect the locutionary meaning with the speaker’s illocutionary intent.

Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

157

11.2.4 Sociopragmatics and Pragmalinguistics This point is related to the interplay of linguistic competence and pragmatic competence. Kasper and Roever (2005) discuss two important domains of pragmatic competence. The first is sociopragmatic competence: “knowledge of the relationships between communicative action and power, social distance, and the imposition associated with a past or future event” (p. 317). The second is pragmalinguistics, which “focuses on the intersection of pragmatics and linguistic forms” (p. 317). As Roever (2009) notes: “If a language user has the sociopragmatic knowledge to understand that a polite request is necessary in a given situation but lacks the pragmalinguistic knowledge of modals, interrogatives, and conventionalized formulas to utter it, pragmatic failure will likely result” (p. 560). In other words, L2 users must learn the vocabulary, syntax, and formulaic expressions needed to carry out the needed speech functions appropriately. On the other hand, “if a language user has control of pragmalinguistic tools without awareness of sociopragmatic rules of usage, she or he might produce well-formed sentences which are so non-conventional that they are incomprehensible or have disastrous consequences at the relationship level” (pp. 560–561). That is, having control over the grammar, vocabulary, and conventional chunks needed to express one’s views or needs is not enough; understanding and producing culturally appropriate language use is also necessary.

11.2.5 Developing Pragmatic Competence Roever (2009) compared learning L2 pragmatics in formal instructional settings and in natural acquisition contexts. Classroom lessons “have a much narrower range of input and interaction opportunities that have the potential to help accelerate learning the targeting instruction at learner’s needs and developmental readiness” (p. 563). In addition, lessons can provide safe places for learners to use speech acts without risking offense. In contrast, non-classroom interactions “provide more input and exposure to a much wider range of social roles, but are likely to lead to slower learning, as learners do not receive any help in structuring input for easier processing” (p. 563). Furthermore, trying to use speech acts outside of language lessons can put L2 speakers at risk of causing confusion or even offense if they are not talking with sympathetic interlocutors. In terms of acquiring pragmatic competence, Kasper and Roever (2005) note that such input is a necessary but not sufficient condition for learners to develop their pragmatic abilities. What can teachers do to help learners develop their pragmatic competence when varied contextual factors are clearly important? “Making contextualized, pragmatically appropriate input available to learners from early stages of acquisition onward is the very least that that pedagogy should aim to do” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 31). So a first step for teachers in designing pragmatic lessons is to identify the speech situations, speech events, and speech acts students are likely to encounter. Then we must determine what speech acts are involved and, in turn, what vocabulary and grammatical structures are entailed in those particular speech acts.

11.3 Practical Activities Language learners often take classes in the hope of improving their grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. But as LoCastro (2010) points out, few students “are aware of the other dimensions of communicative competence that entail learning and acquiring the local norms for making requests, accepting compliments, and performing many other speech acts” (p. 7). In this section, we will consider

158

Teaching Listening and Speaking

awareness-raising activities, improvement strategies, and practice activities that we can use to help learners develop their pragmatic abilities.

11.3.1 Awareness-raising Activities One way we can help learners is to locate or create contexts in which they can hear and see what phrases are repeatedly used to carry out speech acts. In many contexts, “semantic formulas represent the means by which a particular speech act is accomplished” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 16). In reading transcripts of recordings, learners can underline formulaic expressions that are frequently used in particular speech events. For example, in English a casual compliment among social equals often uses the formula: “I (really) like/love your [NOUN PHRASE].” LoCastro (2010) noted that conversations among native and non-native speakers of a language can lead to misunderstanding and even stereotyping. She says that, fundamentally, when we utter a speech act: we are actually “acting,” that is, carrying out an action. However, a misfire … can result in misunderstanding as well as discomfort for the speaker and the addressee. The speaker or the addressee may be perceived as rude or aloof when each was “acting” based on a different set of rules. (p. 7)

In the Reflections section of this chapter, we will see an example of a misfire that occurred between two native speakers, which was caused by a misinterpretation of the illocutionary force of a question. In discussing the value of noticing, Hinkel (2014) asserts that sociocultural norms are present in every language. She says that “to become prepared for a practically infinite number of L2 interactions, learners need to become astute and consistent people watchers” (p. 398). This point suggests a range of awareness-raising activities in which learners observe people interacting in specific contexts. For example, learners can sit in a coffee shop and eavesdrop on how customers place orders. They could also observe (with permission) in a visitors’ center to learn how tourists seek information and how the visitors’ center staff members give advice. What issues influence our pragmatic choices in speaking and listening? Hinkel (2014) says several factors pertain, including the interlocutors’ ages, their gender(s), social status, and social distance. As language teachers, we can first make sure that learners understand these factors. One way to do so—especially in SL contexts—is to have students explain a speech act from their L1 to their teachers and classmates. For example, discussing how apologies are done and when they are used provides interesting intercultural comparisons. After sharing a discussion of apologies, learners can listen for how apologies are done in their TL outside the classroom. Whether learners witness live interactions or view recordings of speech acts, the following questions can be discussed: 1 Were the participants in the interaction of the same age, gender, and social status? 2 What politeness expressions did the speaker use? 3 How did the hearer respond? 4 Why did the hearer give this particular response? 5 What politeness devices were used in the response, and why? (Hinkel, 2014, p. 398)

Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

159

It is useful to have students observe speech acts in natural settings, but a more focused learning activity can begin with having learners view a scene from a film or a television show. The scene should be chosen on the basis of the speech act(s) it depicts. Learners can watch the scene and then address the five questions above, first individually and then in pairs or small groups. LoCastro (2010) describes three activities for developing learners’ awareness. They focus on understanding responses, understanding initiations, and understanding initiations and responses together. LoCastro’s activity for understanding inappropriate responses consists of learners choosing from among possible reactions to an opening utterance from a native speaker. There are three possible responses: one response is not appropriate, another is acceptable, and the third is completely appropriate. A second context is understanding inappropriate initiations of interactions. Learners are given a brief description of a situation in which one person initiates a speech act in a moderately inappropriate to a very inappropriate way. For each context, learners respond to the following questions: “(1) Who is involved? What is the context? (2) What happened? What went wrong? (3) How could this be avoided in the future?” (LoCastro, 2010, p. 14). The third exercise entails both understanding initiating acts and responding appropriately. It involves situations in which the language learners must understand the contextual factors (speakers’ age, relative status, relationship, etc.) and decide what to say in response to an opening remark from a native speaker of the TL. Follow-up activities include whole-class discussions, pair work or group work, written responses, or interviewing friends about critical incidents in using speech acts.

11.3.2 Improving and Measuring Pragmatic Competence Discourse completion tasks have been used primarily for data collection in research; however, they can also serve as the basis of a classroom activity for improving L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. Here are the steps involved: 1 Write a discourse completion task focusing on the speech act(s) you plan to address in a lesson. 2 Prepare an individual copy of the task for each student. The students write what they would say in response to the situation described. 3 Have the students compare their written responses with those of one or two of their classmates, noting similarities and differences. 4 In a whole-class discussion, have students identify any challenges in forming their responses. For instance, what factors did they have to consider? What formulaic expressions could they use? 5 Share with the class how you would respond to the situation yourself. Have the students note similarities and differences between their ideas and yours. As an alternative, before the lesson you can elicit responses to the discourse completion task from a few native speakers or from proficient non-native speakers who have lived in the target culture for a substantial amount of time. Their texts can provide alternatives to your own responses, thereby illustrating the variability inherent in so many speech acts. Discourse completion tasks have the advantage of giving researchers a rough idea of what people might say when faced with a certain context, but they do not entail the urgency of real-time communication.

160

Teaching Listening and Speaking

The written responses may reflect more thought and more carefully edited responses than actually would be used in real speaking contexts. Nevertheless, they are useful in various ways. For example, Farhady (1980) wanted to promote the inclusion of pragmatic issues in an FL context—English language learners at a major university in Iran. As part of this effort, he designed a new subtest for the school’s placement test to assess learners’ abilities to make requests. Due to the large number of test-takers (whose results would be needed very quickly for placement purposes), he chose to use the multiple-choice format. Each test item had a situation requiring a request, followed by four options of how to phrase that request: 1 One was neither grammatical nor sociolinguistically appropriate [−accurate, −appropriate]. 2 One was accurate but inappropriate [+accurate, −appropriate]. 3 Another was inaccurate but appropriate [−accurate, +appropriate]. 4 Finally, the correct answer was both linguistically correct and socioculturally appropriate ­[+accurate, +appropriate]. Farhady’s subtest was based on responses to discourse completion tasks involving making requests. There were two variables involved: social status and social relations. For example, was the speaker making the request of someone he knew well or not so well? And were they of equal status (student to student) or unequal status (student to professor)? When he was designing the subtest, Farhady had 200 native speakers of English respond to the discourse completion tasks. He used the most frequent of their responses as the correct answers. One hundred and fifty non-native speakers also completed the tasks. The responses that differed from those of the native speakers provided the distractors (the incorrect answers). In scoring the subtest, answers that were both accurate and appropriate got two points. Those that were [+accurate, −appropriate] or [−accurate, +appropriate] received one point. The [−accurate, −appropriate] option received no points. Thus, the test-takers were given some credit for what they did know, even if they had not completely mastered the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic variables associated with choosing the request that was both accurate and appropriate. An alternative to written discourse completion tasks is the oral discourse completion task, in which students “listen to a description of a situation … and say aloud what they would say in that situation” (Brown, 2001, p. 302). The advantage of this type of task is that it is quick to administer and encourages speaking; however, if it is being used as a test, it can be difficult to score and requires training.

11.3.3 Practicing Pragmatic Competence with Role Plays Role plays have been used to teach pragmatics as well as to assess learners’ pragmatic competence—a point we will return to in Chapter 14. A role play is essentially an oral interaction between two or more people that is outside the boundaries of genuine interaction. That is, most conversations are genuine, in the sense that they are intended for communication and/or social purposes. In contrast, role plays, including those in L2 lessons, are done for practice. Role plays are ideal for practicing L2 speech acts for the following reasons: 1 They are done in the relatively safe space of the language classroom. 2 Because they are make-believe speech events, there is little chance they will offend someone.

Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

161

3 They can be stopped and restarted if the participants want a second chance. 4 The speakers can get supportive feedback from the teacher and their classmates. Another benefit of role plays is that the factors of the make-believe context can easily be varied: “By preselecting speaker roles, the teacher is able to calibrate sociolinguistic factors” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 265). For instance, in a role play about refusing requests, the person making the request can be characterized as a stranger, a friend, or an employer. He or she can be described as the same age as the student doing the role play, or much younger or considerably older. The value of role plays for practicing pragmatics is that the class can analyze “what actually happens in a role play in terms of the social context, the status of the speakers, and the types of speech acts that are being carried out” (Johnson, 1998, p. 310). Doing so can help learners understand that language use involves “more than grammatical correctness, but rather is a situated phenomenon that shifts and changes according to a host of social and contextual variables” (p. 310). This sort of practice with pragmatics can be useful for both listening and speaking in L2 contexts.

11.4 Reflections Some years ago my husband and I were going on a camping trip to Yosemite National Park—about a four-hour drive from our home. We had decided to leave after work on Friday instead of driving the next morning, so we were rushing to pack to get to the campsite while there was still some daylight. The car was nearly packed and I was finishing stowing the food in the ice chest. My husband came into the kitchen and asked: “Did you pack the silverware?” I responded: “No,” and continued organizing the food. Four hours later we found ourselves at a beautiful campsite, surrounded by towering pines, sitting by a cozy fire. We ate our supper with our fingers because we had no silverware. What had happened? I had interpreted my husband’s question as a request for information about what tasks remained to be done before we could leave. I assumed he would pack the silverware, given my response to the question. He had meant his question as a very indirect directive, reminding me that I should pack the silverware. This communication is an example of what LoCastro (2010) calls a misfire: “something said with good intentions that is misunderstood” (p. 7). As she pointed out, “glitches and misunderstandings often arise from the fact that, even if speaker and listener share the same language, language use is embedded in the contextual framework each speaker brings” (p. 7). In other words, the perlocutionary force I experienced did not match my husband’s illocutionary intent.

11.5 Challenges Kasper and Roever (2005) say that L2 learners face considerable challenges with developing their pragmatic abilities because they must learn “not only how to do things with target language words, but also how communicative actions and the ‘words’ that implement them are both responsive to and shape situations, activities, and social relationships” (p. 317). One of the interesting challenges in teaching L2 pragmatics is that there are so many different ways of doing a speech act (such as a request): “For

162

Teaching Listening and Speaking

any particular speech act, such as requesting, promising, apologizing, and the rest, there are a variety of ways by which the speaker conveys his intentions” (Fraser, Rintell, & Walters, 1980, p. 77). Knowing which way is most appropriate in a given context involves correctly assessing a number of variables: the social relationship of the interlocutors, their relative age and status, the likely imposition of the speech act, the formality of the situation, and so on. Understanding difficulties can occur “when the speaker chooses a degree of formality or informality which, while appropriate in their L1, would be inappropriate in their L2” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 228). Even knowing the right words, syntax, or formulaic expressions to attempt a particular speech act may not be sufficient. The suprasegmental phonemes we considered in Chapter 10 also come into play in pragmatics. For example, “Would you please close the door?” can be said very politely; however, if the speaker is annoyed, the same utterance said with emphatic stress on please takes the nature of an order rather than a request. All of these factors create challenges for language learners who are trying to improve their pragmatic competence. Two key issues to emphasize are how to avoid causing offense and when to use formulaic expressions as appropriate. But we also need to acknowledge another important issue here. Much of the research and information about teaching pragmatics involves comparing how native speakers of the TL do speech acts compared to how they are done by language learners. But in contexts where speakers are using a lingua franca, native speaker norms may not be the right model.

11.6 Concluding Comments This chapter has focused on pragmatic competence, with an emphasis on speech acts. To connect to Chapter 3, it is valuable to remind students about the use of communication strategies when they are unsure of their interlocutors’ intended meanings. If our students don’t understand the locutionary meaning of a speech act, they are unlikely to understand the intended illocutionary meaning. Fortunately, several decades of research have led to a positive conclusion: “The teachability of pragmatics has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, as a considerable number of studies have demonstrated instructional effects in a variety of areas” (Roever, 2009, p. 563).

  Discussion Questions 1 Have you ever been in a situation where the misinterpretation of a speech act triggered a communication breakdown? If so, what was the context? 2 When you have taken language classes, did your teachers focus on speech acts and pragmatic competence? If so, what do you remember having learned from those lessons? 3 Have you ever learned how to initiate and/or respond to an L2 speech act by observing other people? If so, what was the context and what did you learn? 4 If your language teachers have used role plays to practice speech acts, how did you and your classmates respond? Or if you have used role plays in your own teaching, what were your students’ reactions to this way of practicing TL speech acts?

Pragmatics, Speech Events, and Speech Acts

163

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Think about the speech events your students are likely to encounter. Choose two such events and make a list of the speech acts that would probably occur during those speech events. Which of those speech events and speech acts would you want to use as the focus of lessons? Share your ideas with a few classmates or colleagues and see if they agree with your choice of important speech acts. 2 Pick a particular speech act that is important in a culture of the language you teach. Design an activity that would be helpful to your students as they try to master this speech act. Articulate the goals of the activity, list the steps you would take, and decide how you would determine whether or not the students had learned something as a result of the activity. 3 Find a video recording of a scene from a movie or TV show in your TL that involves a particular speech act, such as a complaint, a request, or advice-giving. Plan an activity in which your (future) students analyze the recorded information using the five questions posed by Hinkel (2014). 4 Write two discourse completion tasks for the same speech act that would be important for the learners you (hope to) teach. Have two or more native or proficient speakers of the TL respond to the tasks in writing. Decide how their responses can help you use their particular tasks in a language lesson. 5 Choose a speech act that could be challenging for the students you (hope to) teach. Design a series of role plays that would be appropriate for your (future) learners’ needs and proficiency levels.

  Suggested Readings ●●

●● ●●

Tatsuki and Houck (2010) have edited a helpful book about teaching speech acts. While the book is geared toward English teachers, the activities can be adapted for other TLs. An early and influential collection of research on L2 pragmatics was edited by Rose and Kasper (2001). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching by Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) has an excellent chapter on pragmatics in discourse analysis.

  Technological Tools For an extensive reference list on pragmatics and another on compliments, please visit the TIRF website.

164

Chapter 12 Assessing L2 Listening

12.1 Introduction In this chapter we will focus on assessing non-interactive listening. We will discuss several practical ways of assessing L2 listening comprehension, with techniques ranging from discrete-point phoneme distinction tasks to integrative testing procedures (e.g., in the dictation family, in note-taking contexts, etc.). The concept of authenticity will be revisited, since it is relevant to listening assessment, as well as to both teaching activities and materials development. A main goal of this chapter is to help readers develop classroom assessment tools and procedures that are practical and are likely to support positive washback in their own teaching situations.

Guiding Questions 1 How is the construct of listening comprehension defined? 2 What are the main components of a test? 3 What are the main purposes for classroom-based assessment? 4 What are the criteria by which language tests are evaluated? 5 What are macro skills and enabling skills? 6 What are discrete-point and integrative tests? 7 What do multiple-choice items consist of? 8 What are standard dictations, partial dictations, and graduated dictations, and how are they scored? 9 What are dictocomps? What are they used for and how are they scored? 10 What are sentence repetition and story retelling?

12.2 What We Know Assessment is a key part of teaching and learning. But designing and administering tests, and interpreting their results, isn’t necessarily a skillset that we language teachers have been trained to use or have developed. Before we talk specifically about assessing our learners’ listening skills in this chapter and their speaking skills in the next, there are some basic assessment concepts we should

166

Teaching Listening and Speaking

consider. This part of our field includes a great deal of specialist vocabulary, so it is important for you to be familiar with several key concepts as you read about and discuss language assessment issues.

12.2.1 Components of Tests To begin, we will use a basic framework for talking about the components of tests. This framework states that any test consists of the stimulus materials, the task posed to the learners, the learners’ response, and the scoring criteria (Wesche, 1983). Although there are more modern and more elaborate ways of thinking about the components of tests, this one works well for language teachers. The stimulus material of a test includes the written, spoken, or graphic information that situates the task and elicits the learners’ response. In designing tests, we need to choose such materials carefully in terms of the students’ ages, TL proficiency, interests, learning goals, and cultural values. In listening tests, the stimulus material typically consists of spoken texts and whatever written or visual information accompanies those texts. As we saw in Chapter 5, songs can also be used as listening texts. The prevalent emphasis on communication in language learning has pushed the use of authentic texts as stimulus materials. In Wesche’s framework, the task posed to the learners consists of the mental operations the testtakers must do in order to demonstrate their knowledge and/or abilities. These mental tasks are not directly observable. In listening tests, they include psycholinguistic activities such as decoding words and grammar structures, comprehending main ideas, locating specific information in a spoken text, understanding instructions, and/or drawing inferences. We cannot directly observe learners’ mental listening processes. We can only observe what they are able to do with the texts they listen to. Therefore, as we develop classroom assessment tools and procedures, we need to design assessment tasks that will help us uncover our learners’ listening abilities. (Please note that this meaning of task is somewhat different from the definitions we considered when we read about TBLT in Chapter 8. The term as it is used in Wesche’s framework is narrower than the concept of the tasks we use in lessons.) In contrast, the learners’ response in Wesche’s (1983) framework is the observable, physical action the test-takers use to indicate their understanding. It could involve providing answers to selected response items, such as true-false, multiple-choice, or matching items. In each of these formats, options for the correct answer are provided in the test, and the learners must choose the best one. Conversely, the learners’ response can be elicited by constructed response items, for which the test-takers generate samples of the TL. Constructed response items include compositions, cloze tests, short-answer items, role plays, and so on. The fourth component of a test is the scoring criteria—and this element is what distinguishes a test from a lesson activity. The scoring criteria are the bases on which we determine what mark/grade or how many points the test-takers’ work will receive. The scoring is either objectively or subjectively done. Objective scoring is typically done with an agreed-upon answer key, so no judgment is involved— an answer is either right or wrong. In subjective scoring, such as rating or determining pass/not pass status, there is judgment involved. Subjective scoring may be guided by scoring rubrics—written descriptors of possible performances that explain the nature of the levels of better and worse learner

Assessing L2 Listening

167

responses. Selected response items are usually objectively scored, whereas constructed response tasks are usually subjectively scored.

12.2.2 Purposes of Testing Tests are used for various classroom-based purposes—perhaps the most familiar of which is to determine what students have learned. A progress test is given after a unit of instruction, while an achievement test is given at the end of a course of instruction. In contrast, placement tests are used prior to instruction to determine what level of a multi-level program is most appropriate for students to enter. Diagnostic tests are also administered prior to instruction, but they focus specifically on the material to be covered in particular lessons or units. Their purpose is to determine what parts of the forthcoming curriculum students already know and what parts require further instruction. Progress and achievement tests are related to the concepts of formative and summative assessment, respectively. Formative assessments are intended to provide information that can guide next steps in learning and teaching. Summative assessments are typically conducted at the end of a program or term of instruction. Their results lead to pass/not pass decisions, final grades, and so on. A distinction is made between conventional assessment of learning and assessment for learning. The latter refers to formative and diagnostic purposes for testing “to determine the learners’ progress based on the learners’ needs, with a focus on feedback from the teacher” (Bailey & Curtis, 2015, p. 226). Another term, assessment as learning, “relates to self-monitoring and meta-cognition” (p. 227). It occurs when learners “personally monitor what they are learning and use the feedback from this monitoring to make adjustments, adaptations, and even major changes in what they understand” (Earl, 2003, p. 25). Assessment for and assessment as learning both contrast with the more traditional view of assessment of learning. That term typically refers to testing for summative purposes. It may be done by teachers in their own classes or programs (e.g., in achievement tests). At other times, it is done by external testing organizations in high-stakes contexts. In our own classes, we can work toward assessment for and as learning if we make good decisions about how to define the constructs we wish to assess and about the procedures we use for testing.

12.2.3 Criteria for Evaluating Tests Another important issue to keep in mind comprises the criteria by which tests are usually evaluated. There are four traditional criteria and two more that have been added in recent years. Each of these criteria is important for us as teachers to keep in mind as we design, administer, score, analyze, and revise our language tests. Here are some basic definitions of the four widely accepted criteria:

1.  Validity: the extent to which a text measures what it is intended to measure. 2.  Reliability: the consistency of a test and of the scoring procedures used. 3. Practicality: the resources involved (time, personnel, expense) in developing, administering, scoring, analyzing, and improving tests. 4.  Washback: the extent to which a test affects teaching and learning.

168

Teaching Listening and Speaking

The two newer criteria are authenticity and interactiveness. In this context, authenticity is the extent to which the stimulus materials and tasks on a test match those that learners encounter outside the classroom (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Interactiveness is “the extent and type of involvement of a test taker’s individual characteristics in accomplishing a test task” (p. 25). Please note that this use of the term is not related to interaction between or among learners, or to interaction with native or proficient speakers of the TL. Instead, here it refers to the mental interaction of the test-takers as they engage with the stimulus materials, the tasks posed by tests, and the expected learners’ responses. We should acknowledge that sometimes these criteria seem to work against each other. For example, in general, longer tests tend to be more reliable than shorter tests. But longer tests are more time-consuming to administer, to take, and to score, so they can be impractical, especially if you are working with a large group of students.

12.2.4 Macro Skills and Enabling Skills A major issue in assessing listening is whether we focus on the macro skill of listening comprehension or try to assess the enabling skills—those abilities that contribute to the successful use of the macro skill. For instance, part of interpreting an aural message involves decoding segmental and suprasegmental phonemes, morphemes, vocabulary, syntactic structures, and discourse. For this reason, some listening tests or test items focus on the aural processing of these components of spoken texts. Here is an example. A procedure that is sometimes used for pre-literate test-takers is called sentence repetition or elicited imitation. As these names suggest, the learner hears a single sentence and then says it aloud. “When people are asked to repeat a sentence which uses linguistic rules which they themselves cannot or do not use, they often make changes in the sentence so that it is more like their own speech” (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985, p. 90). For instance, the teacher could say: “Hamid is planning to go to England because he wants to improve his English.” The first student might respond: “Hamid is going to England for his English.” Someone with lower English proficiency might say: “Hamid go to England for English.” The original stimulus sentence had sixteen scorable morphemes: Hamid + is + plan + -ing + to + go + to + England + because + he + want + -s + to + improve + his + English. The first student’s score would be nine out of sixteen possible points. The second student’s score would be six points. We should note that the scoring procedure here emphasizes the learners’ processing of free and bound morphemes rather than focusing on meaning. Sentence repetition is a test of listening in that the stimulus materials are presented aurally; however, the actual construct being measured, in terms of what is scored, is the students’ ability to accurately reproduce the free and bound morphemes they hear. Thus, this technique focuses on enabling skills rather than on listening comprehension.

12.2.5 Defining Listening Comprehension The thing we try to measure is called the construct. Listening tests often focus on measuring the construct of listening comprehension, which can be defined as “the process by which a person understands the meaning of … spoken language” (Richards et al., 1985, p. 54). As we saw in Chapter 5, listening comprehension is a multifaceted construct. It is “complex and involves both higher- and

Assessing L2 Listening

169

lower-order skills” (Richards & Burns, 2012, p. 138). Being able to comprehend various L2 spoken texts depends not only on the learners’ ability to decode the linguistic elements of utterances, but also on their understanding of the speech event and speech acts (see Chapter 11). Part of that understanding depends on the listeners’ content and formal schemata, but part depends on the context: Listening to casual conversation … involves very different skills from listening to a lecture. For the former, recognizing attitudes, following casual language, and processing personal recounts might be important, while for the latter, distinguishing main ideas and supporting details are key listening skills. (Richards & Burns, 2012, p. 138)

Richards and Burns (2012) argue that “listening assessments should reflect the listening skills assumed by the different text types” (p. 138). In other words, the stimulus materials and the tasks posed to the learners in listening tests should match the sorts of listening they actually have to do in their L2 listening. This point concerns both the authenticity of the text and the authenticity of the task. The stimulus materials and the students’ response “should reflect, as far as possible, the way language is used outside the classroom” (p. 141).

12.2.6 Discrete-point and Integrative Testing As we think about assessing listening, we should keep in mind some key concepts about item format. First, discrete-point testing refers to the practice of writing test items that are narrowly focused on assessing one and only one very specific construct, such as a particular grammar point or the meaning of a vocabulary word. Bailey and Curtis (2015) give an example of a test item in which the teacher reads aloud the word ship, and the test-takers must circle a picture of a ship or one of a sheep in the test booklet. In this case, phoneme discrimination is an enabling skill that contributes to listening. Using a picture as part of a test’s stimulus material and picture selection as the learners’ response avoids the problem of students having to demonstrate their listening skills through writing (as in dictations), reading (as in the multiple-choice format), or speaking (as in sentence repetition). But what does this ship/sheep item test? Even though it is highly discrete, it is testing both the students’ vocabulary knowledge of the labels of the two things pictured and the learners’ perception of the two vowel sounds: the /i/ or “long E sound” of sheep and the /ɪ/ or “short E sound” of ship. Of course, there are cases in real-life listening where distinguishing between two phonemes makes a meaning difference. For example, in Spanish, derecha means right, and derecho means straight. If a learner of Spanish asks for directions in Buenos Aires but doesn’t know and/or doesn’t perceive the difference in the final phonemes, she could get lost. This example illustrates the point that discrete-point listening tests often focus on decoding (Field, 2008). Picture-based items are also used to assess vocabulary in the aural mode. For example, if the item stem is “The child is riding a bike,” there could be pictures of a child sitting in a wagon, sitting in a toy car, riding a bike, and riding a pony. The learners’ response is to circle or underline the picture that best represents the spoken statement. In tests that are administered individually, the learner can point to a picture. Both types of learners’ responses avoid the problem of having to determine the learners’ listening comprehension by having them write or repeat what they have heard.

170

Teaching Listening and Speaking

In contrast to discrete-point testing, in integrative testing more than one language component is assessed. An even more integrative test involves more than one skill. For instance, dictations are highly integrative because they involve both listening and writing and entail all the components of understanding speech—from the phonemic level to discourse. In general, more integrative test items are seen as being closer to real-world language use than discrete-point items. Processing spoken language usually entails understanding not just particular phonemes or isolated words, but also syntactic structures, discourse genres, and the speaker’s pragmatic intent (i.e., the illocutionary force of the utterance). Thus, integrative listening tests tend to emphasize meaning-making as well as decoding (Field, 2008).

12.3 Practical Activities There are many practical activities that we as teachers can use for our classroom-based efforts to assess our students’ listening abilities. There is a major challenge, however, in making sure that the tests we design are valid, reliable, and practical, and will generate positive washback. We also want to design instruments and procedures that draw on authentic materials and tasks (authenticity) and that cause learners to engage with the test tasks (interactiveness). We now turn to the matter of the types of test items we can use to assess learners’ L2 listening skills. Field (2012) notes that two “unresolved and maybe unresolvable issues have long dominated discussion of the testing of listening” (p. 212): There is a tension between, on the one hand, the wish to employ methods that are close to real-life listening and impose minimal additional cognitive demands on the candidate; and on the other, the pressure on international exam boards to adopt methods that are familiar to candidates and allow for rapid and reliable marking. (p. 212)

This comment captures the dynamic tension between validity and authenticity, on the one hand, and practicality and reliability, on the other.

12.3.1 Multiple-choice Item Format One format that is familiar to test-takers and is easily scored is the multiple-choice item. A bit of vocabulary about multiple-choice items will be helpful here. The various choices are called options, whether there are three, four, or five of them. The correct option is called the key. The lead-in text which precedes the options is the stem. If more than one item is based on a text (whether it is a listening passage or a written text), the text and its accompanying items are called an item set. The multiple-choice format is often utilized in listening tests. For example, test-takers may hear a brief spoken text as the stimulus material and then select from four written options to identify the main idea of the passage as their observable response. In other cases, the task posed to learners is to locate specific details. In other multiple-choice items, the test-takers hear two people talking. The first person speaks, the second responds, and the students must choose from among the options the most likely comment that would be made by the next speaker.

Assessing L2 Listening

171

There is a potential validity problem with using multiple-choice items to test listening comprehension. Field (2008) says that often the written texts of “multiple-choice options are more difficult to interpret than the recording that is supposed to be the focus of the exercise” (p. 28). So unless we are very sure that the vocabulary and grammar used in the stems and the options of multiple-choice items are familiar to our learners, we may inadvertently be testing students’ reading ability, vocabulary, and/or grammar knowledge, when the construct we really wish to assess is the learners’ listening comprehension. In academic contexts, standardized tests often use the multiple-choice item format because of its ease and reliability of scoring. But teachers should be aware that good multiple-choice items are notoriously difficult to develop, even though once they have been drafted and piloted, analyzed and revised, their scoring is very practical with an answer key. In addition, we must ask what students’ responses on multiple-choice items actually tell us. With multiple-choice items and other selected-response item types, such as true-false and matching items, we can never really be sure if a correct answer actually represents students’ understanding or if it is the result of lucky guessing or successful cheating. It is only if students miss answers on selected response items that we get firm information about their knowledge and/or skills, although poor guessing and inept cheating can also contribute to the selection of wrong answers.

12.3.2 The Dictation Family Dictation is a very traditional testing procedure. While it may seem old-fashioned, the dictation technique has much to offer us as language teachers for classroom-based listening assessment, provided that our students are literate in the TL. The dictation format is actually a family of procedures in which the test-takers listen to a spoken text and write what they hear. Dictations are very versatile because the stimulus material can be about any topic, so you can select or write texts that are related to your curriculum and appropriate for your learners in terms of their ages, interests, and proficiency levels. I find dictations to be particularly informative as diagnostic tests, because the students’ responses provide useful information about the enabling skills that underpin listening comprehension. Dictation as a test of listening is based on the premise that we can better retain in working memory the utterances that we understand. Thus, students with greater mastery of the grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation they hear in spoken texts (and with helpful background knowledge) will understand those texts better and will be able to reproduce them more accurately than students who don’t understand the texts so well. We will discuss four variations of the dictation technique.

12.3.2.1 Standard Dictations The standard dictation procedure usually begins with the teacher reading a text aloud or playing a TL recording once without any pauses. On the second reading, there are pauses after phrases, clauses, or short sentences, during which the learners write what they have heard. (The spoken parts between the pauses are called bursts.) Then the entire text is delivered orally once more, read aloud at a normal pace without pauses, while the test-takers check what they have written. It is a good practice to allow a few minutes before this final reading so the students can look over what they have written. Then, during the final reading, they can focus on those segments about which they are unsure.

172

Teaching Listening and Speaking

How is a dictation scored? If the construct is for comprehension, then spelling errors that yield understandable representations of the source material should not be counted as wrong; however, meaning-bearing morphemes can play a role in scoring dictations. For example, suppose the burst was “a family of procedures” and a student wrote “family of procedure” instead. As dictations are traditionally scored, the missing article a (a free morpheme) and the missing plural marker -s (a bound morpheme) would each cost the learner a point. Unless spelling accuracy is part of the construct being measured, however, the response “a fammily of proceedures” would get full credit. Points are deducted for omissions (words or bound morphemes in the original text that are left out) and intrusions (words or bound morphemes inserted that were not in the original stimulus material).

12.3.2.2 Partial Dictations Another member of the dictation family is called the partial dictation. In a partial dictation, as noted in Chapter 5, the learners are given a written text that provides only some of the language of the spoken stimulus material. They must write the missing portions of the text as they listen to the passage. For this reason, this procedure is sometimes called a listening cloze test, because the stimulus material is similar to that of a cloze test. Using a partial dictation creates a context where learners must listen for very specific information. The example in Chapter 5 was based on an announcement made in an airplane that was arriving late. In that partial dictation, the stimulus material is the spoken announcement. The test-takers must listen for specific numerals (gate numbers, times, and flight numbers). So the mental task posed to the learners is to correctly determine numeric information in the context of an announcement. The learners’ response is to write the correct numbers in the blanks. The scoring criteria are typically the same as those for the standard dictation. That is, unless you want spelling to be part of what is being assessed, spelling errors don’t count. In the airplane announcement example, spelling is irrelevant, since the students can use numerals to fill in the blanks. Having them do so reduces the complexity of trying to determine listening skills (the construct being defined) through writing samples (the format of the learners’ response).

12.3.2.3 Graduated Dictations In a graduated dictation, the stimulus material is a passage that is read aloud or recorded and played, but the bursts get progressively longer. This format is based on the idea that longer bursts are harder to retain in memory, but we can retain what we understand better than what we don’t understand. Here is a simple example of a text that could be used for a graduated dictation:

1.  A traditional way 2.  of assessing listening 3.  is by using dictations, 4.  a family of assessment tools 5.  in which the test-takers hear a spoken text

Assessing L2 Listening

173

  6. while they simultaneously write what they hear.   7. In the standard dictation procedure, for example, the teacher   8. reads a written text aloud or plays a recording once without pausing.   9. On the second reading, there are pauses, called bursts, after phrases and clauses 10. or after short sentences. During the pauses, the learners write what they have heard. 11. Then, finally the entire text is delivered once more, read at a normal pace without pauses, 12. while the test-takers check what they have written to make sure it is accurate and complete.

Graduated dictations are scored like standard dictations. That is, spelling errors do not count against the students. The written texts the test-takers produce should not include any intrusions and should capture all the free and bound morphemes in the stimulus material in the correct order. Typically, more proficient students are able to write more of the later bursts than less proficient students.

12.3.2.4 Dictocomps When the proficiency movement and communicative language teaching gained momentum (see Chapter 3), our view of what language use entails expanded astronomically. With added attention given to pragmatics and discourse, it became clear that tests that measured only the components of language and/or one or more of the four skills were no longer adequate tools for assessing learners’ overall proficiency. As a result, teachers and language test developers had to refocus their efforts to generate procedures for assessing broader conceptualizations of language ability. One classroom-based outcome was that the teaching technique of the dictocomp could be repurposed as an assessment tool. Let me note that in this section I am not working with research results. I am only reporting on my own experience as a teacher. A dictocomp (also called the dictogloss) is somewhat like a standard dictation in terms of the stimulus material. An oral text is read aloud or a recording is played for the learners, although it is not partitioned into bursts. But the task posed to the learners is different. They are supposed to process and understand the meaning of the text instead of retaining its exact wording. That focus is reflected in the learners’ response, which is to write what they understood and remembered, rather than exactly what they heard. The scoring criteria for responses to dictocomps differ greatly from those of standard, partial, or graduated dictations. The focus here is on what the students understood and retained of the oral text— not the original wording. We can use a process called propositional scoring to evaluate a student’s dictocomp. A proposition is “the basic meaning which a sentence expresses. Propositions consist of (1) something which is named or talked about (known as the argument or entity), and (2) an assertion or prediction which is made about the argument” (Richards, Platt, & Weber, 1985, p. 233). Let’s take the sentence from the graduated dictation above as an example: “In the standard dictation procedure, for example, the teacher reads a written text aloud or plays a recording once without pausing.” It contains the following propositions:

174

Teaching Listening and Speaking

1.  There is a thing called standard dictation. 2.  In it the teacher reads a text aloud one time. 3.  Or the teacher plays a recording once. 4.  There is no pausing.

In a dictocomp, the exact words don’t matter. It is the learners’ understanding of the meaning that we are assessing. So if a learner writes: “The teacher doesn’t stop” instead of “There is no pausing,” he would get full credit for having understood that proposition.

12.3.3 Note-taking in Lectures For academically oriented learners, note-taking during lectures is an important skill to develop. As is the case for dictocomps, it is more important for listeners to capture the key ideas rather than to get the exact wording. (An exception would be when the teacher provides a definition or a direct quote that should be recorded verbatim.) We can help learners develop their abilities to listen to lectures effectively by sharing with them the basic structure of lectures and helping them interpret the kinds of speech acts that are frequently used in lecturing (definitions, illustrations, explanations, etc.). Those same elements can be used in evaluating students’ note-taking as a measure of their listening comprehension. For example, a partial dictation can be used to structure the students’ organization of the lecture material they must recall. The lecturer’s use of sign-posting can be helpful in this regard. Sign-posting is the use of formulaic expressions to show listeners the structure and sequence of ideas in discourse. The text of the partial dictation should be based on the lecturer’s actual wording. For instance, the stimulus material for a partial dictation of a lecture might start like this: There are First of all, As an example, Second, In contrast, Finally,

key issues to keep in mind as we study dictations. . . . . .

Once when I was teaching an academic speaking and listening course for intermediate English learners, one of my students wrote “Firstable” for the phrase “First of all” in a dictation. Her rendition made sense phonologically, and it showed me that she was not familiar with the formulaic expression “first of all.” As a result, we reviewed the ways that lecturers use formulaic expressions to mark the beginning sections of lectures.

12.3.4 Story Retelling Obviously none of the dictation procedures is appropriate to use with pre-literate language learners; however, orally retelling a text that has been heard can be a useful way of assessing learners’ listening

Assessing L2 Listening

175

comprehension. As in sentence repetition, the stimulus material in story retelling is a spoken text, but it is longer than a sentence and the genre is often a narrative. The task posed to the learners is to understand and retain the main idea and many details of the story. The learners’ response is to tell the story aloud. The scoring criteria can be either objective (e.g., did the test-takers correctly repeat a certain number of key details) or more subjective (e.g., did they capture the essence of the propositions in the story). Story retelling has often been used in research on reading, but it is less frequently used in research on listening. One example is a study of the effects of story retelling on vocabulary acquisition. Nguyen and Boers (2019) had sixty-four young adults listen to a TED Talk twice. Prior to listening to the presentation, the students were given a vocabulary test to determine which of the lexical items in the text were unknown. This kind of assessment is called a pre-test, because it precedes an experiment. Its purpose is to determine the initial state of the learners’ knowledge. Half of the learners simply listened to the presentation twice, but the other group told a summary of the TED Talk before the second listening. The learners were not given transcripts of the talk nor were there captions on the screen. The input came entirely from listening. The oral summary was delivered within five minutes of having heard the TED Talk for the first time. The group that didn’t give a summary was given five minutes to review their notes and add to them. After the second playing of the TED Talk, all the students answered fifteen questions about the presentation, which had been about bioluminescence. Their vocabulary was also tested then with a post-test to see what uptake there had been in terms of the vocabulary in the talk and what difference there was in the learners’ knowledge before and after the experiment. Two weeks later, the students were tested again, in what is called a delayed post-test (in order to see what vocabulary had been retained after a period of time). A statistical analysis of the results showed that there was no significant difference in the vocabulary knowledge of the two groups on the pre-test. On both the post-test and the delayed post-test, however, the group that had summarized what they had heard before the second listening performed better. Nguyen and Boers (2019) noted that using a target word in the summaries enabled the students to use it in the post-test. That is, the combination of listening and retelling what they had heard and then listening again seemed to promote vocabulary acquisition better than did listening twice without the opportunity to summarize the presentation orally. If you use story retelling as an assessment procedure, you should make sure that the text is age-appropriate, topically relevant, and of interest to the learners. If the construct you are trying to measure is the students’ listening comprehension, the grammar and vocabulary used in the text should be within their grasp. I also recommend that you try out the procedure with some proficient L2 users before testing your students to get some examples of desirable retellings. Piloting the process with proficient speakers can also help you decide whether or not the text is too long.

12.4 Reflections We began this chapter with discussions of the purposes of testing, the components of tests, and defining constructs. In this Reflections section, I am going to share a test-taking experience. Even though the test I am writing about was supposed to assess students’ L2 reading, the students’ reactions

176

Teaching Listening and Speaking

to this test are illustrative of the kinds of problem that can arise when we assess our learners’ speaking and listening skills too. The following report is from a language learning journal I kept during a French course (French 2R) I took many years ago. The class was designed to help university students read academic French. After a mid-term exam (a progress test) several of the students were very upset. All the names reported here are pseudonyms, including the teacher’s (Marie). The journal states that when the teacher returned the graded tests to the students: Herbert told Marie that whether or not the test was fair depended on her purpose in giving it; was she trying to test what we had learned, or was she trying to challenge us? He pointed out to her that tests can be devastating if the teacher’s purpose is to show the students how little they know. He said that last quarter there had been enthusiasm for the French 1R class and that people had enjoyed the other teacher’s discussion of Paris and life in France, and that Marie should realize what was happening in the class. Herbert’s most interesting comment, and the one that upset Marie the most, was, “I think you feel we’re not very bright.” This last remark apparently hurt Marie because she returned to it at the end of the discussion. Herbert … closed his remarks by saying it’s good to be challenged but not overburdened. I soon realized that Robert and Tom were mad at me as well as at Marie, perhaps with good cause. I had gotten a “B” on the test and didn’t realize until much later that this was the high grade, but somehow the others knew that it was. But the thing that really made Robert and Tom angry at me was having to translate the Biblical passage which Marie had included on the test. A few weeks earlier we had encountered the phrase au commencement (“in the beginning”). I asked Marie if that was how Genesis begins in the French Bible. She said she thought so and that she would check. I thought no more about this issue, but part of the translation task on the test turned out to be the first few verses of the Creation Story. I must admit that, except for the opening words and some of the tenses, the passage had nothing to do with what we had been studying in class. I had been amused to see it on the test since I was able to simply compare my memorized King James version with the French without having to really work at translating anything …. But Robert and Tom were furious. They knew quite well that they didn’t know the French vocabulary needed to translate the passage, and they probably guessed that I didn’t either. They angrily told Marie that the Biblical passage was the most unfair part of the whole unfair test. At that point Marie said she didn’t really expect us to know the vocabulary but that she thought it would be interesting for us to try since I had brought it up in class …. I tried to be calm and told the group that I had been surprised by the presence of the Biblical passage in the test, and I acknowledged that I was only able to translate it because I am familiar with the passage in English, and not because of any particular command of French. Then I said something about frustration in language learning being motivating only to a certain extent, and that too much of a challenge could become counter-productive …. When I stopped, Herbert picked up the turn with what was probably the most important statement of the course. He said he felt the class was becoming “an armed camp” and that Marie needed to

Assessing L2 Listening

177

know us as human beings instead of just as dull people in her class. He suggested a social evening, a “soirée,” so that we could get to know each other outside of the tense atmosphere of the French class. Everyone agreed and Marie seemed pleased. (Bailey, 1981, pp. 60–61)

We will revisit this journal entry in Chapter 13, when we discuss different kinds of validity.

12.5 Challenges As noted in Chapter 1, listening is one of the receptive skills, that is, while learners are listening, they are receiving language input. This fact creates interesting challenges for assessment. The macro skill targeted in listening assessment is listening comprehension. To assess this skill, “for many years, teachers have based their teaching and testing upon an approach which measures achievement in terms of the ability to provide answers to comprehension questions” (Field, 2008, p. 5). One problem with that process, however, is that “[a]nswers to comprehension tasks provide few, if any, insights into where learners’ listening problems lie” (p. 7). That is, learners’ responses may not tell us how our students tackled the listening task posed to the learners. This situation is particularly problematic if we use selected response items, such as true-false items, picture selection, matching, or multiple-choice items as our formats for assessing listening. With truefalse items, students have a 50 percent chance of guessing correctly. If we use multiple-choice items, the test-takers have a 33 percent, 25 percent, or 20 percent chance of guessing correctly, depending on whether we design three-, four-, or five-option items. Thus, as noted above, true-false, multiplechoice and other discrete-point, objectively scored items really only give us solid information about the learners’ understanding if the test-takers choose incorrect answers. In addition, discrete-point items tend to focus on decoding rather than meaning making (Field, 2008). But we must acknowledge a major problem with the dictation family is that we are trying to assess learners’ listening (the receptive aural skill) through their writing (the productive graphic skill). As Rost (2016) notes: “Because measures of comprehension entail both recalling what was understood and producing a representation in speech or writing, comprehension and production are also interrelated” (p. 233). As a result, the students’ writing ability may confound our evaluation of their listening proficiency in dictation tasks. Spoken constructed response items on listening tests present a related problem. If we use sentence repetition or story retelling, we are evaluating students’ listening by scoring their spoken rendition of the original text. While dictation and story retelling are presumably beneficial because they are flexible and integrative, they present problems in terms of validity. How do we know that the learners’ responses actually represent what they understood by listening, when the scoring is based on their written or spoken output? As noted above, one of the benefits of using the dictation family as teaching and assessment procedures is that the stimulus material can be based on a text of the teacher’s choosing. That is, you can select, create, or adapt a passage that is appropriate for your own students in terms of their age, interests, cultural values, and TL proficiency levels. A related challenge for teachers, however, is the time involved in selecting or creating appropriate texts.

178

Teaching Listening and Speaking

The same is true of dictocomps. The text (the stimulus material) can be based on authentic materials that you have adopted as-is or that you have adapted to be more appropriate for your students. If you need a passage that is specific to material you have taught (i.e., for a progress test or an achievement test) or will teach (i.e., for a diagnostic test), you can choose an appropriate recording or create your own text incorporating relevant content, grammar structures, vocabulary, and/or speech acts. Doing so is not a simple task, but it is worthwhile. The various types of dictations are typically done as individual test activities, but they can be made more communicative by adding a step for pair work. With objectively scored dictations, before the teacher reveals the answer key, pairs of students can compare what they have written, highlighting or circling words or phrases where they disagree or are uncertain. Then there can be a final reading of the text to accompany the answer key. As Field (2008) notes: “[I]t is extremely valuable for the listener to hear the recording one last time with the transcript available—thus enabling her to recognize any sections of the recording that have proved especially intractable” (p. 53). This process is timeconsuming, but it can help the learners notice the gap between what they were trying to understand and what they were actually able to capture.

12.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter we have considered ways of assessing learners’ L2 listening skills. We learned about components of tests and various purposes of assessment as well as the six criteria for evaluating language tests. The differences between discrete-point and integrative testing were summarized, and we contrasted assessing macro skills and enabling skills. After briefly reviewing multiple-choice items, we examined four types of dictations before turning to a brief discussion of note-taking and story retelling.

  Discussion Questions 1 Have your own L2 listening skills ever been assessed through multiple-choice items? If so, what was the test-taking experience like? Did you feel that your L2 listening had been assessed fairly? Why or why not? 2 Has your L2 listening ability been assessed by some member of the dictation family? If so, how did you feel about that approach to testing your skill? 3 What kinds of non-interactive listening might your (future) students do? 4 Which of the testing procedures described in this chapter would be appropriate for assessing your (future) L2 students’ listening skills? Which ones would you rather not use? Why?

Assessing L2 Listening

179

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Examine a listening test (or a sample test) that your (future) students might have to take. What construct(s) does the test mean to assess? What are the stimulus materials, the tasks posed to the learners, the learners’ responses, and the scoring criteria of that test? 2 Choose or write a text that you could use as listening stimulus material for your students (or future students). What criteria influence your choice of that text? 3 Would that same text be useful for generating a standard dictation, a partial dictation, and a graduated dictation, or a dictocomp? Why or why not? 4 Find or write a narrative that would be appropriate for a story-retelling task. Identify the key propositions before using the text with language learners. 5 Write three or four short TL sentences as the stimulus material for a sentence repetition task. Determine the number of scorable morphemes in each sentence. Ask a low-level learner of that language to repeat them for you. Record the learner’s response and score the output. 6 Using a scene from a film or television program as the stimulus material, what kinds of listening tasks could you pose for the test-takers? What would be the learners’ response? How would their responses be scored? 7 Choose a TL song that your students probably don’t know but would find interesting. Create a cloze passage (i.e., the stimulus material for a partial dictation) using the lyrics of the song. 8 Try out the partial dictation based on the song with a few language learners of different proficiency levels. Score the learners’ responses. Do their responses indicate the task was more or less difficult, depending on their proficiency?

  Suggested Readings ●● ●●

●●

Rost’s (2011) book, Teaching and Researching Listening, has an excellent chapter on assessing listening. Tips for Teaching Listening: A Practical Approach (Richards & Burns, 2012) also has a good chapter on assessing listening. Bailey and Curtis (2015) discuss the dictation family in more detail and give examples of dictocomps produced by English language learners. Their book also has a chapter about writing multiple-choice items.

●●

Buck’s (2001) book is a definitive source about assessing listening.

●●

Chartrand (2009) describes the use of podcasts as authentic materials.

180

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Technological Tools ●●

●●

For an excellent introduction to assessing listening, please visit the British Council’s website and search for “assessing listening.” For extensive reference lists on dictations, assessing listening, and multiple-choice items, please visit the TIRF website.

Chapter 13 Assessing L2 Speaking

13.1 Introduction This chapter will discuss various procedures for assessing language learners’ speaking abilities across a wide range of proficiency levels. Special attention will be paid to providing useful diagnostic and progress information to learners and teachers in order to promote positive washback. The focus here will be on speaking in largely non-interactive contexts. The next chapter will address assessing interactive speaking and listening.

Guiding Questions 1 What are direct tests and indirect tests of speaking? 2 What is reliability in classroom-based assessment? What are intra-rater and inter-rater reliability? 3 What are construct validity, content validity, and face validity? 4 What is practicality in language assessment? 5 What are norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing? 6 What kinds of scoring are typically used in assessing speaking?

13.2 What We Know In this chapter, we will explore classroom language assessment, specifically as it relates to evaluating our students’ non-interactive speaking skills. As Cheng (2013) notes: “The day-to-day assessment of student learning is unquestionably one of the teacher’s most demanding, complex, and important tasks” (p. 11). This comment is especially relevant to testing learners’ L2 speaking. Cheng adds: “Instruction and assessment are integral parts of one another and influence each other in the day-to-day decisions made in classroom teaching” (p. 23). For this reason, it is essential that our assessment procedures are reliable and valid. We also want them to be practical and to generate positive washback.

13.2.1 Direct and Indirect Testing The terms direct testing and indirect testing are frequently used in connection with the four macro skills: speaking, listening, writing, and reading. In direct tests, the learners’ response to the tasks

182

Teaching Listening and Speaking

posed involves doing the macro skill. In a direct test of writing, students actually write. In direct tests of speaking, learners must produce original spoken language utterances. Indirect tests are those that assess the enabling skills that underpin the macro skills. For instance, on the assumption that learners must be able to detect differences among TL phonemes while listening in order to produce them, indirect tests of speaking could include phoneme discrimination tasks. When we assess L2 speaking, we must first decide whether we are testing the macro skill or one or more of its components. An example of an indirect test of L2 speaking would be using the discourse completion tasks described in Chapter 11 to assess spoken pragmatic competence. When learners write what they would say in a particular speech-act context, their written response may or may not reflect what they would actually be able to say. Certainly planning what to say is useful, but it doesn’t involve the pressures of real-time speech production. In summary, an indirect test is one that assesses the enabling skills. In speaking, these enabling skills would include the ability to produce contrasting phonemes in context, employing suprasegmental phonemes correctly, using grammatical structures, and selecting appropriate vocabulary items and formulaic phrases to carry out various speech acts. In direct tests of speaking, test-takers generate original TL utterances, sometimes in answer to a question or in response to a prompt. In other speaking tasks, learners would have to initiate a speech act of some kind. In other words, direct tests of speaking would yield constructed responses in the oral mode. Although sentence repetition involves test-takers producing spoken language, it can’t really be considered a direct test of speaking because they are not generating original utterances. Factors that influence ratings of speaking proficiency can include pronunciation, vocabulary use, grammar, and pragmatics, depending on how the construct of speaking proficiency is defined. For example, a multiple-choice vocabulary test could be considered an extremely indirect test of speaking, since vocabulary use is identified as part of the construct of speaking. If students actually give an oral presentation using that vocabulary, it would be a direct test of speaking. Whether or not a speaking test is direct or indirect is largely a matter of the learners’ response component of that test.

13.2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Language Assessment Tools and Procedures As noted in Chapter 11, there are six accepted criteria for evaluating language tests: reliability, validity, practicality, washback, authenticity, and interactiveness. Here we will consider reliability and validity in more depth as they relate to assessing non-reciprocal speaking, before we revisit washback.

13.2.2.1 Reliability in Classroom-based Assessment Reliability refers to the consistency of a measurement. For instance, if raters evaluate students’ pronunciation of TL utterances, we would hope that the individual raters would be consistent over time. That is, if a rater evaluates the same speech sample on two different occasions using the same criteria, the ratings assigned should be exactly the same or nearly identical. Consistency can be estimated by an index called intra-rater reliability. There are some statistical procedures (Pearson’s correlation,

Assessing L2 Speaking

183

Spearman’s rank order correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha) that yield reliability coefficients. These are numbers from zero to 1.00. The numbers represent the degree of agreement between two ratings of speech samples given by one rater at two points in time. The closer each number is to the whole number 1.00, the better the intra-rater reliability. For example, an intra-rater reliability coefficient of 0.95 would indicate very strong (but not perfect) consistency between a rater’s first and second scoring of speech samples. We would also want different raters to use the rating criteria very similarly. In other words, two or more raters using the same criteria should assign the same or nearly identical scores to the same language sample. A measure of the extent to which they do so is called inter-rater reliability. Again, simple statistics help us estimate the scoring consistency of the raters. An inter-rater reliability coefficient of 0.92 would tell us that a pair of raters had been very consistent, while a value of 0.45 would tell us that their ratings of the same speech samples had varied substantially. Why are these two rater reliability concepts important? As teachers, whether we are scoring participants’ output alone or with a colleague, we must be consistent as we evaluate learners’ speech samples. For one reason, being inconsistent can result in unfair ratings whether they are high or low. Inconsistent ratings can also result in us not being able to trust the results. Various factors can negatively influence the reliability of our ratings. For instance, if raters are tired or bored, rater fatigue can cause them to be harsher or more lenient. In addition, if raters are familiar with some speakers’ first language or accents, they may be more lenient in their ratings. Unreliable ratings can give us faulty information about learners’ skills and can be unfair to the students.

13.2.2.2 Validity in Classroom-based Assessment Broadly speaking, the criterion of validity is the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. There are several different subtypes of validity, one of the most important of which is construct validity. This term refers to whether or not the test adequately operationalizes the concept it is supposed to measure. For example, imagine designing a test to assess students’ communicative competence. Given that sociolinguistic competence is a key component of communicative competence, we could not really consider a test composed entirely of grammar items to be a test of communicative competence. Such a test would not be construct valid. This point leads us to remember the dictation and story-retelling procedures discussed in Chapter 12. In those contexts, we attempt to assess learners’ listening comprehension through what they write and what they say, respectively. So we must be aware that the students’ writing skills and speaking abilities—the learners’ responses—may or may not accurately represent what they understood of the spoken texts they heard. While dictations and story retelling can provide teachers with helpful information, we should remember that the mode of the learners’ response may confound our assessment of the learners’ listening abilities (the construct we wish to measure). Another important type is called content validity—the extent to which a test matches the content of the curriculum on which it is based. For instance, imagine a unit in a speaking course for low-level language learners that emphasizes students being able to introduce themselves, ask for directions and help, and respond to basic questions about themselves. If the progress test for that unit requires students to give a twenty-minute academic presentation, that test could not be considered content valid. Likewise, in a

184

Teaching Listening and Speaking

high-level L2 public speaking course for university students or corporate managers, a test in which they had to ask for directions and answer basic questions about themselves would not be content valid if the course had been about giving formal presentations. Instead, the academic presentation would be a more content valid activity in such an advanced course. Content validity is particularly important in progress and achievement tests. A third type is face validity. This issue deals with whether or not people think a test is a good test— on the face of it. For example, there is a procedure called a conversational cloze test, in which the written text that serves as the stimulus material is actually a transcript of an authentic conversation. Several words are deleted and replaced by blanks, which the test-takers must complete. Early research found that performance on conversational cloze passages is highly correlated with performance on direct tests of speaking (Brown, 1983; Hughes, 1981). So we might assume we can substitute conversational cloze tests for direct tests of speaking, which would be very practical. In completing a conversational cloze test, however, students read and write, but they don’t speak at all. As a result, they may feel that their speaking hasn’t been tested fairly or adequately—an issue of face validity. To illustrate these three types of validity, we can revisit the Reflections section in Chapter 12, in which the students were upset about having to translate a biblical passage on what was supposed to be a test of reading in French. First, the construct being measured by the test was supposed to be the students’ academic reading comprehension—not their translation skills—so construct validity was an issue. Second, neither the vocabulary nor the style of biblical French had been covered in class, so content validity was problematic too. Finally, because of these two issues, the students felt this task was inappropriate and unfair. Thus, there were also concerns about face validity. What is the connection between reliability and validity? For one thing, it has been said that there can be no validity without reliability. That is, if a test isn’t measuring consistently, we can’t know for sure what it is measuring. On the other hand, in some cases a test can be highly reliable and not be valid. For example, scores on a speaking test might yield high inter-rater reliability. But whether or not the test was valid depends on what it was meant to measure. Imagine that the intent was to see if the learner could leave a clear telephone message for her landlord about repairs needed in her apartment. Let’s say the student was supposed to call and leave a voicemail message but sent a text instead. The text might have been clear, but it wasn’t a test of speaking. If the testers decided to evaluate the text message, they might be very consistent in their ratings, but even though the inter-rater reliability would be high, the task could not be said to be valid as a direct test of speaking.

13.2.2.3 Practicality in Classroom-based Assessment As we saw in Chapter 12, another important criterion is practicality—that is, how much time, effort, and expense is involved in developing, administering, and scoring a test. Even more resources are consumed if teachers must develop, pilot, analyze, and revise their own tests—particularly tests of L2 speaking. Practicality is often cited as a major concern about direct tests of speaking, especially if learners are assessed individually. Classroom-based assessment should not be avoided, however, because teachers are in a good position to know their learners’ needs and goals. Teachers also know the curriculum best. In contexts

Assessing L2 Speaking

185

where the curriculum is determined by textbooks, and the textbook series includes tests, those tests may be appropriate for the students. But, in other situations, it is very likely that the teachers will have to design their own tests in order to assess learners’ knowledge and skills. In such cases, practicality is a major concern, particularly if large numbers of students are involved.

13.2.3 Norm-referenced and Criterion-referenced Scoring One decision we teachers often have to make is how to grade our students’ test results or projects. There are two main approaches to scoring learners’ responses. These are norm-referenced and criterion-referenced score interpretation, although two shorter terms are often used. Norm-referenced testing refers to contexts in which scores are assigned based on the relative quality of different students’ work. For instance, if three students participate in a picture-description task, the learner who provides the best description would get the highest grade. The person who gave the least proficient description would get the lowest grade, and the score of the third person would fall somewhere between the other two. In short, grades or scores of one learner depend (at least, in part) on the quality of the other learners’ work. In classroom-based assessment, norm-referenced assessment is often called “grading on the curve.” In other words, the best performances would receive high marks (e.g., a grade of A). The next group would receive somewhat lower marks, and so on. Those students whose work was the worst would receive either the lowest marks or not-passing grades. In the other main approach, criterion-referenced testing, students’ performances are evaluated relative to standards, objectives, or criteria. Comparisons are not made with other learners’ work. Instead, students’ work is compared to the articulated criteria. As a result, in criterion-referenced testing, it is possible that all the learners would be very successful or that all the learners would fail. This approach is also known as outcomes-based assessment (Goh & Burns, 2012). Norm-referenced testing is often used in the context of large-scale standardized testing, with large numbers of test-takers. In that situation, it is possible to plot the scores of the numerous test-takers on a curve: a chart where the vertical axis represents the number of people who received any given score. The horizontal axis represents the possible range of scores. The data points in the chart represent the number of test-takers who achieved a particular score. Depending on the program’s or the school system’s policies, teachers may be required to grade on the curve. In my opinion, however, criterionreferenced testing tells us more about what our students know and can do, relative to the goals of the curriculum.

13.2.4 Scoring Speech Samples What scoring criteria are usually used for evaluating speech samples? Broadly speaking, test scoring is done either objectively or subjectively. As is noted in Chapter 12, objective scoring involves no judgment. It can be done by someone using an answer key, even if that person doesn’t know the TL. Objective scoring can also be done via computer technology. In contrast, subjective scoring does entail judgment. Is the speech sample judged to be excellent, good, average, weak, or poor? Is it deemed to be passing or not passing? If a numerical rating is to be assigned, what are the descriptors that inform the rating criteria? All of these issues are important considerations in subjective scoring of speech samples.

186

Teaching Listening and Speaking

In evaluating learners’ spoken output, subjective scoring is more commonly used than objective scoring. This practice is due in part to the transitory nature of speech. In order to objectively score specific features of TL speech, either a transcript or a clear audio recording is usually required. There are four major approaches to subjective scoring: holistic scoring, analytic scoring, primary trait scoring, and multi-trait scoring. Each approach is useful, depending on the assessment context.

13.2.4.1 Holistic Scoring In holistic scoring, a single score is awarded to a speech sample based on a set of descriptors. For example, the Global Oral Assessment Scale of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) is a holistic scale. At the highest level (C2), the descriptor says the learner “can express him/ herself spontaneously and very fluently, interacting with ease and skill, and differentiating finer shades of meaning precisely. Can produce clear, smoothly-flowing, well-structured descriptors” (University of Cambridge, 2009, p. 13). The descriptor for the lowest level (A1) says: Makes simple statements on personal details and very familiar topics; can make him/herself understood in a simple way, asking and answering questions about personal details, provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. Can manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances. Much pausing to search for expressions, to articulate less familiar words. (p. 13)

Holistic scoring of this sort has the advantage of being relatively fast. Raters can quickly be trained with holistic rubrics to achieve high reliability. But a holistic score doesn’t provide much information about how learners can improve and thus its potential for promoting positive washback is limited.

13.2.4.2 Analytic Scoring Analytic scoring, in contrast, involves analyzing the construct being evaluated, identifying its separate components, and evaluating the students’ performance in those categories. For instance, as noted above, students’ speech samples might be evaluated in terms of their pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and appropriacy, with each category given a separate score. Identifying these categories as the basic scoring criteria tells us that successful L2 speaking consists of using effective pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and appropriacy. In other words, in analytic scoring we analyze and explicitly identify the enabling skills that support the macro skills and test-takers are awarded a score on each component. The independent speaking rubrics of the internet-based TOEFL (TOEFL iBT) provide an example of an analytic scoring system. At the time of this writing, the rubrics comprise four categories: general description, delivery, language use, and topic development. The test-takers’ performance in each category is rated on a scale of zero to four. The IELTS speaking band descriptors also constitute an analytic scale. The IELTS categories are fluency and coherence, lexical resource, grammatical range and accuracy, and pronunciation. Analytic scoring provides more information than holistic scoring. As a result, it has greater potential for generating positive washback; however, analytic scales are much more complicated and timeconsuming to use, so they are not as practical as holistic scoring. They also require more time for rater training.

Assessing L2 Speaking

187

13.2.4.3 Primary Trait Scoring In primary trait scoring, as in holistic scoring, a speech sample receives a single score, but the rating criteria are based on the particular purpose of the speech sample. By way of illustration, Bailey and Curtis (2015) report on a primary trait scoring scale developed by Bolger (1996) for evaluating a speaker’s persuasiveness in an argument. This scale (as cited in Bailey & Curtis, 2015, p. 163) was used in evaluating the data from a role play done by two editors debating which stories should be covered by a news magazine, with each one trying to convince the other. The test administrator was one of the editors and the test-taker was the other editor. Bolger’s work was influenced by that of Hughes (1989, pp. 95–96). The seven-point rating scale Bolger used included the following descriptors (Bolger, 1996, p. 19): Relevant arguments presented in an interesting way, with main ideas prominently and clearly stated, with completely effective supporting material; arguments are effectively related to the speaker’s view. [7 points] Arguments are presented, but it may be difficult for the rater to distinguish main ideas from supporting material; main ideas may not be supported; their relevance may be dubious; arguments may not be related to the speaker’s views. [4 points] Arguments are inadequately presented and supported; they may be irrelevant; if the speaker’s views are presented, their relevance may be difficult to see. [2 points]

In order to generate a primary trait scoring system, it is essential to define the construct that is the primary trait to be assessed. In the example from Bolger, the persuasiveness of the argument is the primary trait. In other speaking tasks, the focal criterion might be detailed description or the clear sequence with which the speaker explains a procedure.

13.2.4.4 Multi-trait Scoring Finally, multi-trait scoring can be described as a combination of primary trait scoring and analytic scoring. That is, a specific purpose for testing is identified, but the components of the speech are also analyzed. An example of multi-trait scoring can be found in Bailey and Curtis (2015), who report on a test designed by Stéphanie Loiselle to assess students’ abilities to write a cover letter in Spanish (the main trait being assessed). The other traits she evaluated were sociolinguistic competence (12 points), use of appropriate formulaic phrases used for greetings and farewell (3 points), grammar (10 points), cohesion (5 points), and coherence (5 points). An example of multi-trait scoring in a test of L2 speaking could be a context in which language learners have to participate in mock job interviews. Raters could evaluate the enabling skills of speaking (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, etc.), but, in addition, the main trait to be assessed would be the interviewer’s performance, which could include the interviewees’ knowledge about the position, apparent confidence, and ability to express their ideas. Which scoring approach is chosen depends on a number of factors, including the purpose and importance of the assessment, how the testing processes and outcomes relate to the course or curriculum, how many students must be tested, and how the test results will be used. The relationships among these four approaches to subjective scoring are depicted in Table 13.1.

188

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Table 13.1  A Comparison of Four Types of Rating on Two Dimensions Students Receive a Single Rating

Students Receive Multiple Ratings

General Purpose for Speaking or Writing

Holistic Scoring

Analytic Scoring

Focus on the Specific Purpose of Speaking or Writing

Primary Trait Scoring

Multi-trait Scoring

13.3 Practical Activities For classroom activities and assessment tools to be truly valuable, they need to promote learning. The effect of a test on teaching and learning is known as washback. Hughes (1989) was one of the first people to write about how teachers can promote positive washback. He listed the following processes: test the abilities whose development you want to encourage; sample widely and unpredictably; use direct testing; make testing criterion-referenced; base achievement on objectives; ensure the test is known and understood by students and teachers; where necessary, provide assistance to teachers (pp. 45–46). Following these guidelines is particularly important in tests of speaking, if we want to improve our language learners’ speaking, including their pronunciation, fluency, and pragmatic abilities. Having declarative knowledge about language is not sufficient; being able to communicate effectively in a second or foreign language requires procedural knowledge as well.

13.3.1 Individual Narratives One natural situation for having learners speak in non-reciprocal contexts is recounting individual narratives. Storytelling can involve talking about an actual event in the past—an adventure, an accomplishment, a choice that changed the speaker’s life. Telling a story that is known to the speaker but not to the listener(s) provides a natural information gap: The speaker is sharing knowledge that the listener(s) lack. A parallel approach is to ask the speaker to talk about future hopes or plans. For example, the following questions can provide prompts for talking about future plans or hopes: 1.  What do you want to do after you finish your class/program/diploma? 2.  What are your plans for the end of the week/month/semester? 3.  What will you do when you arrive in your new town/province/country?

Obviously, in scoring these sorts of individual narratives, you can evaluate the grammatical structures for describing past events or future plans. You can also assess the speakers’ use of discourse features (e.g., orienting the listening to the time and place of the narrative). Students can recount their past events in narratives, talk about future plans in recordings, or tell their stories face to face. If you do listen to the stories face to face in real-time, you can provide the normal

Assessing L2 Speaking

189

back-channeling responses that would be typical of listeners in a storytelling context. In my experience, learners produce more compelling narratives if they feel that their interlocutors are really listening to them and are engaged in the story.

13.3.2 Leaving a Telephone Message It is not uncommon to have to leave telephone messages, in both our first and other languages. The message might be for transactional purposes (e.g., requesting a prescription refill from a pharmacy) or interpersonal reasons (e.g., inviting a friend to get together). Leaving a telephone message in a second or foreign language can seem very awkward because, in addition to potential L2 challenges, the speaker has no verbal or visual feedback to indicate whether the message has been understood. As an awareness-raising activity, students can listen to different versions of telephone messages that are more or less effective. For example, a clear telephone message would be intelligible, would identify the topic, would provide the caller’s name and the date of the call, and, if needed, the caller’s number for a return call. A less-effective telephone message might lack the purpose or topic of the call, might not be intelligible, and might incorrectly assume the recipient has the call-back number. As a speaking task, students can be given a telephone message assignment to respond to a particular prompt. Here are some examples: 1 Students can call a professor and ask for an appointment. They should explain the purpose of the appointment, suggest two possible dates and times, leave a call-back number and an email address, and thank the professor. 2 Adult learners can call in response to an offer of a job interview. They should express interest in the position, explain that they are not available on the suggested date and time, suggest two alternative dates and times, leave a call-back number, and thank the person who called them. 3 Learners who are immigrant parents of school-age children can ask for an appointment with a teacher or a school counselor. They should give and spell their names and the children’s names, briefly identify the issue to be discussed, give the date and time of the call, and leave a call-back number. In these contexts, the scoring criteria can include the speakers providing the required information, as well as ratings of pronunciation, vocabulary, and TL fluency as needed. In other words, primary trait or multi-trait scoring criteria could be developed in these situations.

13.4 Reflections For many years, I have taught an advanced oral communication class for international graduate students. I always begin the course with an activity for designing a student-generated rating instrument that will be used to evaluate and provide feedback on the participants’ oral presentations throughout the semester. In the first class, I demonstrate good and poor speeches. I begin by entering the classroom and giving a brief speech (three–five minutes) about the course—but doing so very badly. This first presentation involves mumbling, inarticulate speech, getting my notes out of order and dropping my

190

Teaching Listening and Speaking

note cards, skipping information and doubling back, constantly looking out of the window, repeating information, using distracting gestures, chewing gum, and failing to maintain eye contact. I do this terrible presentation without telling students that I am intentionally doing a bad job. Some of them look appalled! They wonder if this bumbling idiot is really the instructor who will be teaching the professional presentations class. Next, I give the same speech very well, speaking clearly and loudly enough for everyone to hear, keeping my notes in order and referring to them only briefly. I progress logically through the information, using appropriate sign-posting and delivering the key concepts without repeating (except to provide a summary at the end). I am careful to use only gestures that are synchronous with the meaning being conveyed, and I maintain eye contact with the audience throughout the presentation. Then I give the students a worksheet printed on both sides. Page one has two columns, headed “First Speech” and “Second Speech.” The students’ task is independently to list the characteristics of the first and second speeches. They then compare their lists with a partner and add any new notes the partner had included if they agree about the importance of those points. On the back of the worksheet, there are two columns, headed “Dos” and “Don’ts.” Based on their observing and pair work, the students list things to do and to avoid doing when giving a speech. Then in pairs again, they compare their lists and agree on the items in both categories. These studentgenerated categories usually include characteristics such as “speaks clearly,” “maintains eye contact,” “avoids distracting gestures,” “organizes the ideas,” and “has clear pronunciation.” I collect this input and create a composite form based on the students’ ideas, trying to incorporate all of the students’ ideas. In the next class meeting, I share the draft with the students and elicit their revisions. The students negotiate the feedback mechanism (e.g., whether to use numerical ratings or categories such as “good, fair, needs improvement,” and so on). Those suggestions are discussed until we agree upon a rating instrument that everyone in the class feels would be useful. I have five main reasons for going through these steps, rather than just giving the class a rating instrument that I devise myself:

1. to heighten the students’ awareness about effective and ineffective presentation behaviors through the experience of being listeners; 2. to give students a chance to devise a rating system for evaluating presentations, since presentations of projects are very commonly assessed in their courses; 3. to provide a mechanism for the students to get systematic feedback from their peers and me; 4. to create the basis for self-evaluation by these learners; and 5. to generate “buy-in” by the students, by giving them a major role in defining the evaluative criteria and designing the assessment instrument for our course.

Subsequently, the class utilizes the student-generated rating instrument as follows. Throughout the semester-long course, the instrument we generate is used for evaluating the students’ speeches, which are video-recorded. In addition to many skill-building exercises, four or five formal presentations are given each semester: two individual presentations and two panel presentations. After each presentation,

Assessing L2 Speaking

191

the rating instrument is used by the speaker’s classmates and by me. It is also used by individual students to evaluate their own recorded presentations, because self-assessment can be an effective way to raise awareness and improve speaking skills. In a very interesting report on a similar process, Popko (2009) describes having his students create the scoring rubrics for presentations. His comment about what he did resonates with my views: What makes this activity different from other oral presentations is the aspect of reflective learning provided by allowing students to create a rubric to grade their recorded performance. This selfreflection allows them to change their perceptions of their own performance. (Popko, 2009, p. 187)

I would add that we hope our learners will continue to improve after they finish our courses and programs. I believe that having my students engage in the process of designing our assessment procedures contributes to that goal.

13.5 Challenges Speaking assessment is often challenging because of the trade-off between practicality and validity, particularly when tests of speaking are conducted with only one learner at a time. This challenge is exacerbated when we are assessing speaking in large classes. As a result, speaking assessment is often downplayed or even ignored. When we do assess monologic L2 speaking, it is important to pose authentic tasks for the test-takers. That is, the prompts should elicit speech that learners would normally deliver. Another concern is making sure our ratings of students’ speech samples are reliable. When individual teachers are responsible for evaluating learners’ speaking, this means being consistent and fair when listening to the students’ speech samples. Becoming over-tired or annoyed can lead to rushing or being overly harsh or too lenient. Finally, in cases where several teachers are working together, choosing or creating an appropriate scoring rubric can be very challenging. The constructs being assessed must be clearly defined. In addition, raters need to be very familiar with the descriptors in the rubric and to use them consistently in the evaluation process in order to achieve high inter-rater reliability and to be fair to the test-takers.

13.6 Concluding Comments In this chapter we have considered several of the most important issues in evaluating our students’ L2 speaking skills, focusing specifically on non-interactive or minimally interactive speaking contexts. We have considered direct and indirect testing, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing, objective and subjective scoring, and four types of subjective scoring: holistic, analytic, primary trait, and multi-trait scoring. We also learned about inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and three types of validity: construct, content, and face validity. All of these issues are also matters of concern in evaluating interactive L2 speaking—the topic we will explore in Chapter 14.

192

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Discussion Questions 1 Have you ever taken a test of your non-interactive L2 speaking abilities? If so, what procedures were involved? How did you feel about the validity of that test? Did the results accurately reflect your own views of your L2 non-reciprocal speaking abilities? 2 Thinking about the students you (hope to) teach, what sorts of individual speaking must they do in the TL? What individual speaking assessment tasks would be appropriate for them? 3 Given what your learners need to do when they are speaking in their TL, what sorts of scoring systems would be appropriate for rating their speech samples? (See Table 13.1.) 4 Have you ever taken a test that you thought was unfair? If so, why did you think so? What did you do after taking the test?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 Design a non-interactive speaking task that would be appropriate for your (future) students. Start by ­identifying and defining the construct(s) to be assessed. 2 Locate a scoring rubric that would be appropriate for evaluating your students’ L2 speaking skills on the task you designed. Is the system you found based on holistic, analytic, primary trait, or multi-trait scoring? Explain to a classmate or colleague why you would use this rubric and elicit feedback on your ideas. 3 If you can’t find an appropriate scoring system, draft the scoring criteria that you could use to evaluate your students’ responses to the task you designed.

  Suggested Readings ●● ●●

●●

Derwing and Munro (2015) have an excellent chapter on assessing pronunciation. Cheng’s (2013) booklet on classroom language assessment is a very helpful introduction for language teachers. Goh and Burns’ (2012) book has a very helpful chapter on assessing speaking.

  Technological Tools ●●

●●

For an excellent introduction to assessing speaking, please visit the British Council’s website and search for “assessing speaking.” For information about the scoring of the TOEFL iBT independent speaking task, please visit the Educational Testing Service (ETS) website.

Chapter 14 Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

14.1 Introduction There are numerous situations in which learners must interact successfully in a new language. While listening and speaking can be (and often are) tested separately, using both skills simultaneously is an important part of language proficiency. Therefore, assessing interactive TL use is an important part of gathering information about our learners and making good decisions on the basis of that information. In this chapter we will review procedures teachers can use to assess learners’ oral/aural proficiency in interactive contexts. We will also consider needs assessment procedures that can help us determine our students’ needs for interacting in the TL. Needs assessment data can inform syllabus design, lesson planning, and test development, perhaps especially in specific-purpose language courses.

Guiding Questions 1 How can spoken interaction be assessed? 2 What is needs assessment? What data collection procedures can be used in conducting a needs assessment? 3 What are language for specific purposes courses? 4 What features of spoken interaction are typically evaluated? 5 What are the steps involved in conducting an oral proficiency interview? 6 How can role plays be used to assess learners’ interactive listening and speaking?

14.2 What We Know Being able to interact with others in a new language is important, and—if successful—rewarding, but how we assess our students’ interactive abilities can be challenging. As Thornbury (2012) noted: “Speaking is probably the most difficult skill to assess—even with the aid of recording technology— given its real-time and typically interactive nature” (p. 204).

194

Teaching Listening and Speaking

14.2.1 Oral Proficiency Interviews In Chapter 3 we learned a bit about oral proficiency interviews (OPIs), a widely used testing procedure in which trained interviewers elicit TL speech samples from one or more individuals: “Collaborative tasks, where learners interact in pairs or small groups … have the advantage that they reflect communicative methodology and hence are likely to have a positive effect on classroom practice” (Thornbury, 2012, p. 204). This point about a positive effect on practice leads us to washback, which we will revisit below. When used as tests of spoken interaction, OPIs are typically a type of unequal power discourse— that is, interactions that give one or more persons the discoursal “right” to nominate or change topics, to ask questions, to determine who speaks when, and to terminate turns or entire discussions. Thus, the language samples elicited in OPIs are not necessarily good examples of conversational discourse. The general phases of the OPI are the warm-up, the level check, the probe, and the wind down. In the warm-up phase, the interviewers put the candidate at ease by engaging in a brief conversational exchange. Doing so gives the interviewers a general sense of the person’s ability, so next they do a level check by setting up tasks described as being essential at that level. If the test-taker can sustain performance at that level, the interviewers attempt a probe, in which they give the candidate tasks at the next higher proficiency level. If the test-taker can sustain performance at that higher level, the interviewers attempt probes at the next higher level, and so on. When they have determined the level at which the test-taker can perform consistently, they engage in the wind-down phase, during which the test-taker is given tasks that are well within his or her capabilities, in order for the interview to finish on a positive note. OPIs focus on the learners’ current language abilities and often receive an overall rating, but speech samples elicited in OPIs can also be scored in terms of the components of spoken language (pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary, grammar, and so on). Conducting a needs assessment about the ways in which our students must communicate will help us determine what other factors should be rated—for example, appropriately using the various speech acts learners will need to employ in the contexts where they must interact in their L2.

14.2.2 Needs Assessment Needs assessment (also called needs analysis) consists of a set of procedures used to determine learners’ needs for the language they are studying. In this context, the term needs refers to the difference between the learners’ present TL abilities and the current and/or future uses to which they will put that language. Needs assessment information can be used for decision-making at the levels of entire curricula, specific courses, or individual units of a class. The data collection procedures involved can include questionnaires, interviews, and observing situations in which our learners need to use the TL.

14.2.2.1 Questionnaires in Needs Assessment Questionnaires are written documents for eliciting survey responses. They normally consist of closed items and/or open-ended items. Closed items are like selected response items on language tests (e.g., respondents check a box or rank statements on the questionnaire). Such items yield comparable data across respondents and are relatively easy to analyze, but they constrain the

Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

195

Table 14.1  A Sample Questionnaire for Getting College Students’ Views on Their Needs for Academic Speaking For each English task listed below, please give your opinion of the importance and the difficulty of that task. Use a scale of 1 to 5 for both importance and difficulty(5 = very, 3 = neutral, 1 = not very). Importance

Speaking Tasks in Academic Contexts

Difficulty

5

Giving individual oral presentations

5

5

Giving panel presentations

4

2

Talking informally to classmates

2

4

Talking to classmates during group work or when doing a joint project

3

5

Asking questions of the professor during class

4

5

Talking to a professor individually during office hours

5

4

Talking to staff members at the college

5

5

Disagreeing with classmates

5

4

Asking classmates for help outside of class

3

4

Expressing opinions in class

3

Other: Other:

breadth of information you can obtain. In contrast, open-ended items parallel constructed response items on tests. They provide varied data across respondents and don’t constrain the responses. As a result, they can be more informative, but they are also harder to analyze than data from closed items. Table 14.1 provides a simple format that can be used with literate learners for getting their views about their own needs for using the TL. For example, I ask my non-native-speaking university students about what is challenging in their content area courses. I use this format to get their views on the importance and difficulty of various speaking tasks they must be able to do with English. The categories I supply are based on my own experience in teaching speaking and listening in academic contexts, but adding a few blank rows with “Other” encourages the students to add their own concerns. By averaging the students’ importance ratings and their difficulty ratings on each item, you can determine where to invest lesson time. For instance, a task that is neither difficult nor important should not warrant that much attention.

14.2.2.2 Interviewing in Needs Assessment Interviews are useful needs assessment tools, particularly when you are working with pre-literate learners. There are four main types of interviews that are used to obtain needs assessment data. ●●

Structured interviews are similar to questionnaires, but are completed orally rather than in writing. The researcher adheres closely to a uniform set of questions and doesn’t deviate from the structured questions while recording the responses.

196

●●

●●

●●

Teaching Listening and Speaking

Semi-structured interviews are less rigid than structured interviews. The interviewer uses predetermined questions to elicit comparable data across interviewees but also allows for elaboration in the respondents’ answers as issues arise. In unstructured interviews the interviewer knows in general the sort of information he or she wants to elicit, but lets the interviewee take the lead. The interviewer follows the themes and issues that emerge naturally during the interview. Finally, focus group interviews are conducted with small groups rather than with individuals. Focus group interviews are especially useful in contexts where respondents might be hesitant to talk to interviewers individually. In conducting focus-group interviews, we must be careful not to let particular individuals dominate the discussion. Sometimes one person’s views may sway the group, but, in other cases, the ideas of one participant can encourage others to speak. They may also spark opposing views.

14.2.2.3 Observing in Needs Assessment One useful source of data is observing people doing the work that our learners will do in the TL. In my experience, this view is especially true in situations where the people we are observing are interacting in their real-life contexts and shouldn’t be interrupted or disturbed. For example, imagine the case of Korean managers working in factories in Guatemala City. Observing Spanish-speaking managers and supervisors interacting with the Spanish-speaking factory employees could provide important information about the kinds of speech acts the Korean managers would need to be able to use in Spanish. In my own experience of studying the communication challenges of non-native-speaking teaching assistants (TAs) at a large university in the United States, observing physics and math classes as well as physics laboratory sessions was essential to understanding the communication breakdowns that occurred (Bailey, 1985). Being physically present in the lab or the classroom as the TAs interacted with their students allowed me to see problems that had not been identified in formal assessments of the TAs’ spoken English. For instance, in oral interviews with the TAs, the interviewers had been polite and patient. In the actual classes, however, the students were often demanding and impolite. Those in-class observations also allowed me to document contextual factors that influenced the interaction between the TAs and their students, but which were not linguistic in nature. For instance, in the physics lab sessions, it was often difficult simply to hear the TAs as they explained the steps of the experiment to their students. Extraneous noises from construction projects near the labs, from jets flying overhead, from people shouting and slamming locker doors in the hallway, and from equipment in neighboring laboratories were all commonplace. Such distractions contributed to the students’ inabilities to understand the TAs’ instructions.

14.2.2.4 The Relationship between Needs Assessment and Language Assessment Two key questions must be addressed at this point: What is the difference between needs analysis and language assessment? What is the relationship between them? First, with the exception of selfassessment, language assessment—specifically language testing—is often done to learners by

Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

197

someone else (teachers, program directors, state or provincial departments of education, national ministries of education, or international testing organizations). This is often the case in assessment of learning. In contrast, needs assessment procedures focus squarely on assessment for learning. Second, conducting needs assessments allows us to gather views from many stakeholders, about both the processes and the desired outcomes of language learning. For example, I may assume that the Korean factory managers learning Spanish in Guatemala would need to be able to use both the formal and informal imperatives in their work, and both the negative and affirmative forms of those commands. Role plays in OPIs could assess the managers’ ability to use those structures, but observations conducted as part of a needs assessment would reveal the contextual factors that could influence their use (e.g., the urgency and degree of danger involved in working with factory equipment). In short, needs assessment and language assessment are different but complementary processes for helping teachers determine what to focus on in L2 speaking and listening lessons. Needs assessment is important because some key features of spoken interaction cannot be identified through testing alone.

14.2.3 Specific-purpose Language Teaching In the mid-1970s, language curriculum development underwent a very important change. Applied linguists in the United Kingdom, motivated by the needs of international students and immigrants, began investigating language used for specific purposes (e.g., for doctor-patient communication or for studying engineering). The development of specific-purpose curricula was greatly aided by needs assessment. In fact, many of the published needs assessment studies involve determining the particular language needs of people using their L2 in education, business, and industry. In specificpurpose language testing, “the test content and test methods are derived from an analysis of a specific language use situation, such as Spanish for business” (Douglas, 2000, p. 1). Thus the construct(s) to be assessed must be determined through a careful examination of the language learners’ particular communicative needs.

14.3 Practical Activities One of the most practical activities that can be used to assess spoken interaction is role playing, which we encountered as a teaching activity to promote interaction in Chapter 7. One benefit of using role plays as teaching and learning activities is that your students will be familiar with the procedure when they encounter it in assessment contexts.

14.3.1 Role Plays in Assessment Contexts In Chapter 11, we considered role plays as a classroom activity for practicing speech acts. Role plays are often used as parts of OPIs, but they can also be used as stand-alone classroom-based assessment activities. Thornbury and Slade (2006) note that in role plays learners can “explore the effects of different contextual factors—power relationships, setting, communicative purpose, etc.—on language” (p. 265). These authors add that role plays provide speaking opportunities that approximate

198

Teaching Listening and Speaking

typical communication; however, they also note that “role plays tend to be transactional rather than interactional, and tasks tend to be structured rather than free” (p. 266). Thus, role plays may not be authentic tests of a range of conversations. In Chapter 12, we saw that authenticity is one criterion for evaluating language tests. In assessment contexts, authenticity consists of the extent to which the stimulus materials and tasks on a test match those that learners encounter outside the classroom. This criterion is especially meaningful in specificpurpose teaching and learning contexts. In specific-purpose language testing, “the situational and interactional authenticity of the input are potentially high, which is especially evident in the evaluation of productive skills” (Séguis & McElwee, 2019, p. 65). For example, the speaking subtest of the Occupational English Test for healthcare professionals “consists of two role plays between the candidate and interlocutor. The candidates assume the role of a health professional while the interlocutor acts as a patient” (p. 65). This context is interesting because the interviewees (the test-takers) are the people in power (the healthcare professionals) relative to the interviewers (who take the roles of the patients): The candidates advise the interlocutor on the most suitable treatment, discuss medication options, and give further details regarding the patient’s condition. Such role-play tasks give them an opportunity to engage both language and background knowledge, as well as to perform interactional tasks similar to the ones that they would normally carry out in their day-to-day work, such as reassurance, persuasion, or explanation. (p. 65)

As this quote shows, the appropriate use of speech acts can be very important in evaluating candidates’ interactive skills. Sometimes role plays can seem very artificial, however. Bailey and Curtis (2015) argue that the roleplay scenarios in tests should match the learners’ experience and should seem plausible relative to their work or future plans. Those authors recount the experience of a person who was interviewed for a Spanish teaching position at a multi-lingual language school. Because the school’s administrative language was English, all prospective teachers were interviewed in both English and their teaching language. This particular teacher reported that the Spanish OPI went well but she floundered in the role play in English (her native language). The testers had asked her to give an acceptance speech on receiving an award as the “Used Car Salesman of the Year.” When asked how she would have responded if the task had been about receiving the “Teacher of the Year Award,” she said that it would have been much easier. In addition to being authentic, role-play tasks should also be age-appropriate and culturally appropriate for your students. For instance, an ESL textbook published before 2000 included a role play in which a boy meets a girl at a party, introduces himself to her, asks her about herself, and later tells his friends about her. Clearly this scenario was intended to elicit conversational turn-taking, questionasking by the test-takers, and use of the third-person present-tense -s in the final task (talking about the girl). One of my female students, an English teacher from the Middle East, found this role play to be highly inappropriate for her EFL students, however, since boys and girls would not attend parties together in her home culture.

Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

199

In preparing role-play tasks for assessment, there are several variables to consider. Here are some questions to consider before using role plays to assess learners’ interactive speaking and listening: 1 Are the students acting as themselves or as someone else (e.g., are they checking into a hotel or do they play the role of a hotel clerk)? 2 Do the students have time to prepare for the role play or is it spontaneous? 3 If planning time is allowed, can the students plan their speech with a classmate or do they plan and act individually? 4 Will the students perform the role play in front of their classmates or with only the teacher watching and listening? 5 As an alternative, is the role play conducted as pair work, with various pairs in the room role playing at the same time? If so, how can the interaction be used for assessment purposes, as opposed to a lesson activity? There is often discussion about whether role plays should be scripted. My own opinion is that writing out the lines of a role play turns it into a dialogue reading or recitation, and thus decreases the value of having to speak spontaneously. As Hattingh (1998) notes, the problem with scripting the lines in a role play is that the learners “are just rehearsing scripts of which they know the context and final outcome, and by doing so they lose opportunities for developing their communicative strategies” (p. 307). Keep in mind Wesche’s (1983) framework: Tests consist of stimulus materials, tasks posed to the learners, the learners’ response, and the scoring criteria. The scoring process is what distinguishes tests from classroom activities. For testing purposes, you must decide how to rate the students’ roleplay interactions, and doing so depends on how you define the construct you wish to measure.

14.3.2 Assessing Conversational Skills Conversation is the most basic and most prevalent of interactional speech events. Yet it is probably the most difficult to assess because creating a testing context often reduces or eliminates the spontaneous nature of conversations. Knowing they are being assessed can cause learners to focus on form rather than (or in addition to) focusing on meaning. As a result, the interaction samples we obtain may not represent our students’ speech during unmonitored conversations. As an alternative to face-to-face testing, you can have learners record L2 actual conversations and submit their recordings for rating; however, that approach creates the opportunity for planning and rehearsal—neither of which is typical of authentic conversations. Still, you can listen for the learners’ use of natural conversational features: turn bids, back-channeling, turn overlaps, topic nominations, and the use of communication strategies. Turns should be largely contingent upon the interlocutors’ previous turns, rather than scripted or rehearsed. One procedure that can help us understand and evaluate our students’ conversational abilities is self-assessment. We can ask learners to keep a simple log of their L2 conversations over time and to document their successes and challenges. Checking on their reflections about their interactions can give us further ideas for planning instruction and discussing interaction with learners. Having our students take part in assessing their progress can be an example of assessment for learning.

200

Teaching Listening and Speaking

14.3.3 Revisiting Washback As we saw in Chapter 12, washback is basically the effect of a test on teaching and learning. In recent years, a distinction has been drawn between washback and test impact, which is the broader societal influence of language testing (see, e.g., Green & Hawkey, 2004). Washback can be either positive or negative. Positive washback refers to the idea that a test can have beneficial influences on learning and/ or teaching. So how can positive washback be promoted? First, positive washback can occur when what is taught is what gets tested (Hughes, 1989). In that case we have curriculum alignment. This term means that, if learning goals are appropriate and if the curriculum promotes the learning goals, then the testing content and procedures should closely parallel the curriculum. We can also promote positive washback by carefully defining the construct(s) we are measuring and explicitly designing the tasks and articulating the scoring criteria of our assessment tools. Subsequently, when those scoring criteria are shared with students, they will better understand how their performance (i.e., the learners’ response) will be measured. This knowledge should therefore influence what they would try to do, for instance, in a role play. In addition, tests can promote positive washback if learners receive feedback on their performances. Unfortunately, most large-scale tests only provide scores rather than giving specific information about areas for improvement. But, in our own classroom assessments, we can design tests of interaction that provide both us and our students with clear ideas about issues to work on to develop their speaking and listening skills.

14.4 Reflections When my friend Leo van Lier was researching OPIs (see van Lier, 1989), he arranged to participate in OPIs of his various TLs. A native speaker of Dutch, Leo had learned English, French, and German as a student. He later lived in Mexico and Peru for many years and was fully proficient in Spanish. Because I had been trained in the procedures of both the ILR OPI and the ACTFL OPI, I agreed to help Leo collect his data by being one of the two interviewers who would conduct his OPI in English. In the initial phases of Leo’s OPI, it was clear that he had native-like English proficiency, with only a slight accent. But determination of ILR level 4 competence or higher requires the candidate to be able to shift register. Leo was more articulate than many native speakers I’ve known; however, in the OPI, my co-interviewer and I had not elicited any samples of him speaking in a casual register. So I set up a roleplay task in which his usual, highly articulate professional speaking style would probably not be entirely appropriate: I asked Leo to imagine that he and a female companion were traveling across the country. They had stopped at a diner in the middle of nowhere, had supper and coffee, and then driven on. Later Leo’s female companion realized that she had lost a valuable earring—perhaps at the restaurant. At that point I removed one of my (not so valuable) earrings, gave it to Leo, and asked him to role-play a situation in which he telephoned the restaurant (after closing time) and convinced the waitress (who was tired and wanted to go home) that she should look for the missing earring. Leo was to convince her to mail it to him at a forwarding address. As you might have predicted, I was to play the role of the waitress.

Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

201

Leo glowered at me when I had finished setting up the situation. He hates role plays. (Bailey, 1998, p. 169)

Nevertheless, in spite of his resistance, Leo was able to produce a convincing role play in which he got the waitress to look for the missing earring and convinced her to mail it to him using an appropriate register. Afterwards he just shook his head and laughed at how stubborn I had been (in the role of the waitress) in resisting his requests.

14.5 Challenges There are several challenges associated with assessing our students’ interactive speaking and listening skills. Some are associated with the enabling skills of speaking and listening. For instance, in determining listening comprehension during direct face-to-face tests of interaction, we primarily make inferences about learners’ L2 fluency if they ask us to repeat or to speak more slowly. In indirect tests of interaction (e.g., multiple-choice tests of listening in which the stimulus material consists of two people having a conversation), we may not know what factor(s) in the input (speed, vocabulary, pronunciation, etc.) caused the test-takers to select a distractor rather than the key. A related concern is assessing learners’ speaking fluency. As we saw in Chapter 9, fluency has long been recognized as a key element of speaking proficiency, but its measurement has remained a challenge. Tavakoli, Campbell, and McCormack (2016) note: “Given its complex and multifaceted nature, speech fluency is known as a difficult construct to measure” (p. 455). It is frequently evaluated as one of the rated subscales in analytic scoring procedures. If we consider pronunciation to be a component of L2 speaking ability, it is very difficult and timeconsuming to score pronunciation objectively. (Indeed most classroom evaluations of speaking are done subjectively.) In order to objectively score pronunciation, we would need recordings and detailed transcripts to identify problem areas. In other cases, it might be possible to use an image from a sound spectrograph and compare our learners’ speech to that of native or proficient models. In either case, practicality becomes a problem if we try to score speaking objectively. In addition, Thornbury (2012) notes that “reading aloud or recording a prepared monologue may be valid for testing pronunciation but not for spoken interaction” (p. 204). Indeed, there are often differences between learners’ pronunciation (as well as their grammar, fluency, and vocabulary selection) when they focus on speaking the TL correctly and when they focus on conveying meaning instead. Given that assessing interaction is often done subjectively, other challenges must be considered. First, there must be clear and appropriate descriptors that are used in the rating process, and the raters must be trained in their use. These processes are directly related to concerns about practicality. Second, it is important to be able to calculate inter- and/or intra-rater reliability in order to demonstrate that scores have been assigned consistently. We must also be concerned about authenticity in terms of what we ask test-takers to do. These are all substantial challenges; however, it is worthwhile for teachers to assess learners’ interactive speaking and listening because of the information such assessments provide and their potential for generating positive washback. In my experience, giving our students feedback about how

202

Teaching Listening and Speaking

they can improve and encouraging them to interact frequently in the TL can be highly motivating and can lead to language development. I want to finish this book with a happy ending through a little story about L2 interaction that illustrates a particular challenge that language learners may face. You will recall that in Chapter 1 we learned about ludic uses of language: interaction “for the purpose of amusing and entertaining oneself and others” (Tarone, 2005, p. 490). Some years ago, one of my MA students was an experienced teacher from Japan whom we will call Keiko. She was very dedicated and hard-working, but was also quite worried about her ability to interact in English. One Friday afternoon, I heard her talking with an American student outside my office. Her classmate was trying to convince Keiko to come to a party that evening. Keiko insisted that she had to study and didn’t have time to go to a party. I was both Keiko’s professor and her academic advisor, so I asked her to step into my office. I asked why she didn’t want to go to the party and she reiterated that she had to study. I told her I understood that she was a dedicated student, but my intuition was that she really didn’t want to go to the party and studying was an excuse to stay home. She admitted that she didn’t want to go to the party and told me she felt embarrassed because she couldn’t speak English well enough to enjoy herself. She thought it must be uncomfortable for her classmates to talk with her. In addition, she shared that she never understood the jokes people told in English. I could certainly relate to Keiko’s attitude, because as an intermediate speaker of Spanish, I am bereft of my sense of humor in my L2. I feel I have no personality when I try to interact in Spanish. Still, I wanted to encourage Keiko to go to the party. We talked about interacting in English as a way of improving her fluency. I reminded her that I was her advisor and my advice was that she should go to the party. She reluctantly agreed to go. The next week I saw Keiko and she reported that she had attended the party and met some very nice people and interacted in English the whole evening, but that she was exhausted afterwards. She added that she hadn’t understood most of the humor. You can imagine how happy I was, a year later, when Keiko went to a graduation party with her classmates. Afterwards she proudly told me: “I told a joke in English and everyone laughed!” Of course, I was delighted. This chapter has focused on assessing L2 interaction. As Keiko’s story illustrates, the real test of interacting successfully in a new language is using that language—actually facing the challenges and experiencing the rewards of having done so.

14.6 Concluding Comments This chapter has focused on assessing listening and speaking in interactive contexts. We began with a discussion of the phases of OPIs. Then we considered needs assessment and its relationship to language assessment. Three key procedures were considered for gathering needs assessment data: questionnaires, interviews, and observations. We briefly considered specific-purpose language teaching contexts, in which needs assessment is particularly important. As a means of assessing spoken L2 interaction, we reconsidered role plays and discussed assessing conversations. Finally, we revisited washback and identified some of the challenges associated with evaluating students’ interaction skills.

Assessing Interactive Speaking and Listening

203

  Discussion Questions 1 Have you ever taken an OPI in your TL? If so, did you feel your speaking and listening skills had been tested fairly? Why or why not? 2 As a language learner, would you prefer to have your interactive speaking and listening evaluated by interacting with a test administrator or by interacting with another language learner? What are the reasons for your preference? 3 How do you feel about using role plays for testing your (future) students’ interactive speaking and listening? What are the advantages and disadvantages? 4 Have you ever conducted an OPI? If so, what training did you have in using the descriptors of the rating system?

  Follow-up Tasks 1 If you are teaching now, ask your students about situations in which they must interact in the TL. For example, if your students are immigrant parents, they may need to be able to communicate with teachers and administrators at their children’s schools. 2 Write a role-play prompt that requires your students to discuss a problem in a context that is important to them. Try out the role-play prompt with your learners. Record their ideas about the speaking and listening challenges inherent in whatever situation they identify. 3 If you are not yet teaching, try to identify three contexts in which your future students will probably have to interact in the TL. Write a role-play prompt for each context you identify. 4 Find someone who is a trained OPI administrator of your TL and ask that person to test your proficiency. Describe the experience of being interviewed to a classmate or colleague. What did you learn? 5 Plan a needs assessment project for a course you teach or hope to teach. Share your plan with a classmate or colleague. 6 As a (future) language teacher, what questions and concerns do you have at this point about teaching L2 speaking and listening? Make a list of your concerns about teaching listening and speaking. Share your ideas with a classmate or colleague.

204

Teaching Listening and Speaking

  Suggested Readings ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

Bailey and Curtis (2015) have a chapter on using role plays to elicit speech samples in language assessment. Leo van Lier’s (1989) seminal article, “Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation,” documents problems with the validity of OPIs. For an interesting book about OPIs, please see Johnson (2001). Long (2005) has written a clear introduction to L2 needs assessment, which includes an excellent overview of a wide range of research. Richard-Amato (2010) has many suggestions for using role plays with teenagers, young adults, pre-adolescents, and young children. Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes (Douglas, 2000) has a very fine chapter on specific-purpose tests of listening and speaking.

  Technological Tools ●●

Please visit the TIRF website for free downloadable reference lists on OPIs, interviewing, focus groups, and needs assessment.

●●

Information about the ACTFL OPI can be found on ACTFL’s website.

●●

If you search the internet for rubric generators, you can find tools for developing your own scoring systems.

References

ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (2012a). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/ actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012 ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (2012b). Listening. Retrieved from https:// www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012/english/listening ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (2012c). Speaking. Retrieved from https:// www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012/english/speaking Adelson, A. (2019). Getting transcription ready. Language Magazine, 18(6), 34–35. Allwright, R. A., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Asher, J. J. (1966). The learning strategy of the total physical response: A review. The Modern Language Journal, 50(2), 79–84. Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response technique of learning. Journal of Special Education, 3(3), 253–262. Asher, J. J., Kusudo, J. A., & de la Torre, R. (1993). Learning a second language through commands: The second field test. In J. W. Oller Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers (2nd ed., pp. 13–21). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bailey, K. M. (1981). An introspective analysis of an individual’s language learning experience. In S. Krashen & R. Scarcella (Eds.), Issues in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum (pp. 58–65). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67–102). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Bailey, K. M. (1985). If I had known then what I know now—performance testing of foreign teaching assistants. In P. C. Hauptman, R. LeBlanc, & M. B. Wesche (Eds.), Second language performance testing: Le testing de performance en language seconde (pp. 153–180). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa. Bailey, K. M. (1996). The best laid plans: Teachers’ in-class decisions to depart from their lesson plans. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research on second language education (pp. 15–40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions and directions. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Bailey, K. M. (2001). What my EFL students taught me. The PAC Journal, 1(1), 7–31. Bailey, K. M. (2005). Practical English language teaching: Speaking. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

206

References

Bailey, K. M. (2010). Cowboys, closets and communication strategies. In D. Nunan & J. Choi (Eds.), Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity (pp. 14–22). New York, NY: Routledge. Bailey, K. M., & Curtis, A. (2015). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions and directions (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning. Bailey, K. M., & Krishnan, A. (2015). Old wine in new bottles: Solving language teaching problems creatively. In A. Maley & N. Peachy (Eds.), Creativity in the English language classroom (pp. 84–97). London, UK: The British Council. Bailey, K. M., & Krishnan, A. (2016). A conversation about creativity: Connecting the new to the known through images, objects, and games. In R. H. Jones & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Creativity in language teaching (pp. 213–226). New York, NY: Routledge. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Beckett, G. H., & Miller, P. C. (Eds.). (2006). Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beebe, L. M. (1983). Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 39–66). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Black, C. (2016). La place de l’art dramatique dans un cours de français oral de 2e année aniversitaire. Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(1), 77–99. Bohlke, D. (2014). Fluency-oriented second language teaching. In D. M. Brinton, M. Celce-Murcia, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 121–135). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Bolger, P. (1996). Review of the readings test for content-based instruction. Unpublished paper, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CA. Boudreault, C. (2010). The benefits of using drama in the ESL/EFL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 16(1). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Boudreault-Drama.html Brown, D. (1983). Conversational cloze tests and conversational ability. ELT Journal, 37(2), 158–161. Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, different tests. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 301–325). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge English (n.d.). Fitness for purpose. Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/ research-and-validation/fitness-for-purpose Campbell, C. M., & Ortiz, J. (1991). Helping students overcome foreign language anxiety: A foreign language anxiety workshop. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 153–168). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. Cannon, A. (2017). When statues come alive: Teaching and learning academic vocabulary through drama in schools. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 383–407. Celce-Murcia, M. (2014). An overview of language teaching methods and approaches. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 2–14). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.

References

207

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chartrand, R. (2009). From podcasting to YouTube: How to make use of internet 2.0 for speaking practice. In T. Stewart (Ed.), Insights on teaching speaking in TESOL (pp. 91–105). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Cheng, L. (2013). Language classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 402–423. Council of Europe. (2018a). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages Council of Europe. (2018b). Global scale—Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/ table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Finding flow. New York, NY: Basic Books. Curran, C. (1976). Counseling-learning in second languages. Dubuque, IL: Counseling-Learning. Curtis, A. (2017). Methods and methodologies in language teaching: The centrality of context. London, UK: Palgrave. de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55–85. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173–210. Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Duff, P. A. (2014). Communicative language teaching. In D. M. Brinton, M. Celce-Murcia, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 15–30). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Edge, J., & Garton, S. (2009). From knowledge to experience in ELT. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). Harlow, UK: Longman. Farhady, H. (1980). Justification, development, and validation of functional language testing. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Field, J. (2012). Listening instruction. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 207–217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fonio, F. (2012). Stuffed pants! Staging full-scale comic plays with students of Italian as a foreign language. Scenario, 6(2), 18–27. Retrieved from http://research.ucc.ie/scenario/2012/02/Fonio/04/en Fraser, B., Rintell, E., & Walters, J. (1980). An approach to conducting research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 75–91). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

208

References

Galante, A., & Thomson, R. I. (2017). The effectiveness of drama as an interactional approach for the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 115–142. Galvan, J. L., Pierce, J. A., & Underwood, G. N. (1976). The relevance of selected educational variables of teachers to their attitudes toward Mexican American English. Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest, 2(1), 13–27. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, J. (2014). Teaching pronunciation. In D. M. Brinton, M. Celce-Murcia, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 136–152). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Green, T., & Hawkey, R. (2004). Test washback and impact. Modern English Teacher, 13(4), 66–71. Hatch, E. M., & Long, M. H. (1980). Discourse analysis—What’s that? In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis and second language acquisition research (pp. 1–40). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hattingh, S. D. (1998). Role plays in the conversation class. In J. Richards (Ed.), Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms (pp. 307–310). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2018). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Henry, J. (1994). Teaching through projects. London, UK: Kogan Page Ltd. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109–131. Hinkel, E. (2014). Culture and pragmatics in language teaching and learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 394–408). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Hinkel, E. (2018). Teaching speaking in integrated-skills classes. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0256 Holtgraves, T., & Ashley, A. (2001). Comprehending illocutionary force. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 83–90. Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (Eds.). (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hughes, A. (1981). Conversational cloze as a measure of oral ability. English Language Teaching Journal, 35(2), 161–168. Hughes. A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(1), 73–98. Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83–103. Johnson, K. E. (1998). Comments on “Role plays in the conversation class.” In J. Richards (Ed.), Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms (p. 310). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Johnson, M. (2001). The art of non-conversation: A re-examination of the validity of the oral proficiency interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Developing pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). New York, NY: Routledge. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1–8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

References

209

Kelly, G. (2000). How to teach pronunciation. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman. King, L. (2017). The impact of multilingualism on global education and language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge English Language Assessment. Koponen, M., & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5–24). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. San Francisco, CA: Alemany Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural and second language learning research: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 335–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Larimer, R., & Schleicher, L. (1999). New ways in using authentic materials in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lazaraton, A. (2014). Second language speaking. In. M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 106–120). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, UK: LTP. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. LoCastro, V. (2010). Misunderstandings: Pragmatic glitches and misfires. In D. H. Tatsuki & N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 7–16). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 39, 259–278. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. Long, M. H. (Ed.). (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lowe, P. (1988). The unassimilated history. In P. Lowe & C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues (pp. 11–51). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576. Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17(4), 29. McCarthy, M. J. (1999). What constitutes a basic vocabulary for spoken communication? Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 1, 233–249.

210

References

McCarthy, M., & O’Keefe, A. (2014). Spoken grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 271–287). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Munro, M. J. (2003). A primer on accent discrimination in the Canadian context. TESL Canada Journal, 20(2), 38–51. Nation, I. S., & Newton, J. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge. Nguyen, C.-D., & Boers, F. (2019). The effect of content retelling on vocabulary uptake from a TED Talk. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 5–29. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2007). What is this thing called language? Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Nunan, D. (2014). Task-based teaching and learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 455–470). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Nunan, D. (2017). The integrated syllabus: Content, tasks, and projects. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (2nd ed., pp. 124–136). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Oller, J. W. Jr. (1993). Reasons why some methods work. In J. W. Oller Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers (2nd ed., pp. 374–385). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Park, H. (2015). Student perceptions of the benefits of drama projects in university EFL: Three case studies in Korea. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(3), 314–334. Peck, S. (1980). Language play in child second language acquisition. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 154–164). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pica, T. (2005). Second language acquisition research and applied linguistics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Popko, J. (2009). Demystifying presentation grading through student-created scoring rubrics. In T. Stewart (Ed.), Insights on teaching speaking in TESOL (pp. 179–190). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Prator, C. H., & Robinett, B. W. (1985). Manual of American English pronunciation (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt College Publishers. Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101–108). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pridham, F. (2013). The language of conversation. London, UK: Routledge. Richard-Amato, P. (2010). Making it happen: From interactive to participatory language teaching. Evolving theory and practice (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman. Richards, J. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Tips for teaching listening: A practical approach. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow, UK: Longman. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Riggenbach, H. (2000). (Ed.). Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Roever, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 560–577). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

References

211

Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ross, S. (1987). An experiment with a narrative discourse test. In K. M. Bailey, T. L. Dale, & R. T. Clifford (Eds.), Language testing research: Selected papers from the 1986 colloquium (pp. 60–69). Monterey, CA: Defense Language Institute. Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman. Rost, M. (2016). Teaching and researching listening (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Savignon, S. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 635–651). New York, NY: Routledge. Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24(2), 205–214. Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Scovel, T. (1991). The effect of affect. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 15–23). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Segalowitz, N. (2007). Access fluidity, attention control, and the acquisition of fluency in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 181–186. Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge. Segalowitz, N. (2012). Fluency. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 240–244). London, UK: Routledge. Séguis, B., & McElwee, S. (2019). Assessing clinical communication on the Occupational English Test®. In S. Papageorgiou & K. M. Bailey (Eds.), Global perspectives on language assessment: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 63–79). New York, NY: Routledge. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Stewart, T. (Ed.). (2009). Insights on teaching speaking in TESOL. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Stoller, F. (2002). Project work: A means to promote language content. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 107–118). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 19–40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–770. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). New York, NY: Routledge. Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. C. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 194–203). Washington, DC: TESOL.

212

References

Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of “communication strategy.” TESOL Quarterly, 15, 285–295. Tarone, E. (1984). Teaching strategic competence in the foreign-language classroom. In S. J. Savignon & M. S. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching (pp. 127–136). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tarone, E. (2005). Speaking in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 485–502). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Tatsuki, D. J., & Houck, N. R. (Eds.). (2010). Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2016). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 447–471. Thornbury, S. (2012). Speaking instruction. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 198–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.). (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. University of Cambridge (2009). Examples of speaking performance at CEFR levels A2 to C2. Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/22649-rv-examples-of-speaking-performance.pdf Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Vanderbrook, S., Schlue, K., & Campbell, C. (1980). Discourse and second language acquisition of yes/no questions. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 56–74). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 489–508. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586922 van Lier, L. (1995). Introducing language awareness. London, UK: Penguin Books. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London, UK: Longman. van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7(2–3), 128–145. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological prospective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 245–259). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and ­learning (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26(2), 281–295. Vorholt, J. (Ed.). (2019). New ways in teaching speaking (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Wesche, M. B. (1983). Communicative language testing. Modern Language Journal, 67(1), 41–55. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching English as communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language ­teaching and learning (pp. 671–691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References

213

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 173–179). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1–28. Young, D. J. (1986). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 19(5), 439–445. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

Index

accent and accentedness 11, 54, 64, 107, 129, 134, 139–40, 144–8, 150–2, 183, 200 access fluidity (lexical access) 129 acculturation 53 accuracy 33–4, 36, 49, 58–9, 67, 85, 113–14, 116, 125–9, 133–7, 151, 172, 186 achievement test 167, 178, 184 ACTFL See American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Adelson, A. 100 adjacency pairs 155 affective feedback 58 affective filter 22, 54 affordances 45, 51–3, 59, 73, 98 affricate 142 Allwright, R. A. 9, 16, 27–8 alternative methods 21 alveolar fricatives 142 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 16, 33, 35, 43–4, 200 analytic scoring 186–8, 201 anaphora 102 Anderson, J. R. 6 Anderson, M. 19–21, 23, 29 Appel, G. 60 appropriateness 35 appropriation activities 84–5 articulation 82, 86, 89, 126, 133, 141–2, 148 Asher, J. J. 21 Ashley, A. 156 assessment 11, 17, 31, 33–4, 36–7, 68, 70, 93, 120, 153, 165–7, 171–3, 175, 177–8, 181–8, 190–200, 202–4 attention control 129 audiolingual method 20–1, 25–6, 30, 59, 74, 139, 145–6 authenticity 68, 81, 92, 116, 165, 168–70, 182, 198, 201 authentic materials 10, 61, 68–70, 75, 77, 120, 170, 178–9 automatization 127 autonomous listening 65–7

autonomy 24, 54, 57, 77, 84–5, 93, 98–9, 117 awareness-raising 130 Bachman, L. F. 168 back-channeling 97, 131, 189, 199 Bailey, K. M. 9, 12–13, 16, 27–8, 40–1, 44, 51, 56–7, 64, 71, 86–7, 90, 93, 106–7, 109, 137, 148, 167, 169, 177, 179, 187, 196, 201, 204 Bardovi-Harlig, K. 157–8 Beckett, G. H. 123 Beebe, L. M. 107 behaviorism 146 Berlitz method 19 bilabial phonemes 141 Black, C. 24, 85 Boers, F. 175 Bohlke, D. 127, 135 Bolger, P. 187 bottom-up processing 61, 64, 75 Boudreault, C. 85 bound morphemes 5, 168, 172–3 Boustagui, E. 150 Brinton, D. M. 141 Brown, D. 184 Brown, H. D. 18, 21, 29, 36, 95, 98–9, 135 Brown, J. 75 Brown, J. D. 160 Buck, G. 128 build in the recognition step 55 Burns, A. 35, 62, 67, 77, 82–4, 86, 89, 93, 96, 114–15, 123, 125–7, 153, 169, 179, 185, 192 bursts 171–3 Cambridge English 34, 44 Campbell, C. C. 10 Campbell, C. M. 93, 125 Canale, M. 35, 37, 44 Cannon, A. 85 carrier topics 18, 68 cataphora 102 Celce-Murcia, M. 5, 35, 141–4, 152, 154–5, 163

Index

Chartrand, R. 179 Cheng, L. 181 closed items 194–5 closed syllable structure 142 cognitive feedback 58 cognitive fluency 126, 129 collocations 82, 128 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) 34, 186 communication-gap task (information gap and two-way information gap) 36, 85, 88–9, 113–15, 120–1, 188 communication strategies 10, 31, 35, 37–44, 67, 106, 108, 127, 162, 199 communicative competence 10–11, 18–19, 31, 34–6, 39, 42–4, 157, 183 communicative language teaching 10, 28, 31, 36, 97, 114, 122, 129, 140, 145, 173 Community (or Counselling) Language Learning (CLL) 22, 30 compare with a classmate 56 competition 127, 148 complexity 69, 81, 105, 116, 125–8, 135–6, 142, 172 comprehensibility 11, 139, 145, 150 conceptual preparation 82, 86, 89, 126, 132 consonant clusters 142, 146, 149 consonants 4, 139, 140–2, 146, 149 construct 7, 10–11, 22, 34–5, 45, 54, 57, 61, 63, 96, 102, 125–6, 128, 135, 154, 166–9, 171–2, 175, 177, 179, 181–4, 186–7, 191–2, 195–7, 199–201 constructed response items 166, 177, 195 construct validity 181, 183–4 content schemata 61, 63–4, 75, 100 content validity 181, 183–4 context-gap 115 contingency 54, 57, 96 contingency principle 54, 57 continuity and coherence 53, 57 contrastive analysis 145–7, 151 contrastive stress 143 conversation 6–7, 9, 19–20, 22, 27–8, 36–8, 41, 46, 48, 68–9, 79, 84, 86, 89, 95–7, 100, 106, 109, 115, 128, 134–5, 143, 154, 169, 184, 199, 201, 204 Cook, G. 115 Cook, V. 14 corpus, corpora 82, 93 correspondence projects 117 Council of Europe 34 criteria for evaluating tests 167, 178, 182 criterion-referenced testing 185 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 54 Curran, C. 22 Curtis, A. 10, 17, 29, 64, 71, 167, 169, 179, 187, 198, 204

215

Dailey-O’Cain, J. 14 debilitating anxiety 91, 107 declarative knowledge 2, 6, 8, 13–14, 39, 57, 127, 188 decoding 61–3, 75, 166, 168–70, 177 deictics 83, 97 De Jong, N. 132 Derwing, T. M. 20, 73, 140, 142–7, 150, 152, 192 diagnostic test 167, 171, 178 dialogic speech 90 dictation 21, 63, 68, 71, 100, 103, 165, 169, 170–4, 177–80, 183 dictocomp (dictogloss) 165, 173–4, 178–9 direct intervention 50 direct method 19–21, 27 direct tests 181–2, 184, 188 discourse 5–10, 20, 33, 35–8, 42–3, 49, 54, 62–4, 79–81, 83–5, 89, 91, 93, 95–102, 114, 131–2, 159–60, 163, 168, 170, 173–4, 182, 188, 194 discourse competence 35, 43, 49 discourse completion task 159–60, 163, 182 discourse markers 83–4, 91, 101–2 discrete-point testing 169–70 discussion task 114–15 distractors 160, 201 Dörnyei, Z. 37–9, 43–4, 127 Douglas, D. 197, 204 Duff, P. A. 34 Earl, L. M. 167 Edge, J. 126 elaboration 34, 55, 67, 196 ellipsis 97 Ellis, R. 50, 98 El Tigi, M. 150 emergence 19, 32, 36, 50, 54, 57 emphatic stress 143, 154, 162 enabling skills 121, 165, 168, 169, 171, 178, 182, 186–7, 201 encounter projects 117–18 environment 12–13, 22–3, 27, 40, 52, 54, 57, 68, 86–7, 112, 122 error analysis 145–7 evaluation 66–7, 119, 177, 190–1, 198 extemporaneous speaking 89, 119 extensive listening 65–7, 72 face validity 181, 184, 191 facilitating anxiety 91, 107 Færch, C. 37 Farhady, H. 160 feed me back the task 55

216

Ferris, D. R. 140 Field, J. 62–5, 67–9, 71, 74, 93, 128, 169–71, 177–8 flow 28, 47, 54, 57, 125, 129, 141 fluency 11, 20, 34, 36, 85, 125–37, 186, 188–9, 194, 201–2 focused and unfocused tasks 114–15, 119, 123 focus-group interviews 196 Focus on Form (FonF) 46, 49–51, 60, 113, 121, 199 Fonio, F. 85 foreign language (FL) contexts 10, 13–14, 42, 47, 118 formal schemata 61, 63, 75, 169 formative assessment 167 formulaic language 83, 93, 127–8, 130 formulation 82–3, 86, 89, 125–6 Fraser, B. 154, 162 free morphemes 5, 172 fricatives 142 functionalism 36 Galante, A. 85 Galvan, J. L. 147 Garton, S. 126 Gass, S. 46–7, 58 gesture 27, 86, 97, 133, 190 gisting 64 glides (semi-vowels) 142 glottal fricatives 142 Goh, C. C. M. 35, 82–4, 86, 89, 93, 96, 114–15, 123, 125–7, 153, 185, 192 Goodwin, J. 134, 141, 144, 152 graduated dictation 165, 172–3, 179 grammar translation method 18–22, 24–5 grammatical competence 35 graphemes 4, 139–40 Green, T. 200 group work 55, 58, 97–9, 105, 107–9, 114, 122, 155, 159, 195 handover/takeover principle 54 Hatch, E. M. 96 Hattingh, S. D. 199 Hawkey, R. 200 Hedgcock, J. S. 140 Henry, J. 40–3, 57, 99, 117 hesitation phenomena 126, 128 Hinkel, E. 9, 32, 51, 63, 66, 111, 114, 140, 145, 158, 163 holistic scoring 186–8 Holtgraves, T. 156 Horwitz, E. K. 93 Houck, N. R. 163 Hughes, A. 184, 187–8, 200 Hymes, D. 34, 36

Index

illocutionary meaning 156, 162 indirect intervention 50 indirect tests 181–2, 201 inferencing 61, 74–5 information gap 36, 85, 88–9, 113–15, 120–1, 188 input 22–4, 32, 35, 39, 45–9, 54–5, 57–9, 62, 65, 67, 69–70, 72, 75–6, 83, 86, 97, 100, 103, 108, 112–13, 115–16, 132, 157, 175, 177, 190, 198, 201 inside-outside circle 131–2 intake 22, 45–6, 54 integrative testing 165, 169–70, 178 intelligibility 11, 139–40, 145–6, 150 intensive listening 65, 67–8, 72 interaction 2, 6–11, 13–15, 19, 24, 27, 34, 37, 41–3, 45–9, 51–3, 56, 59–60, 68, 74–5, 79–80, 84, 86, 89, 95–9, 101–2, 104, 105–9, 111–13, 115, 117, 121, 125, 130–1, 144, 146, 150, 153–4, 157–60, 168, 193–4, 196–202 interactional language 2, 6, 80 interactive listening 10, 65, 165, 178, 193 interactiveness 168, 170, 182 interactivity 95 Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) 32 interlocutor 5, 8, 11, 34, 36, 38, 47–8, 53–4, 58, 79, 95–7, 108, 126, 150, 157–8, 162, 189, 198–9 International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) 140, 152 interpersonal language 80 inter-rater reliability 181, 183–4, 191 intersubjectivity 52, 54, 57 interviews (structured, semi–structured, and unstructured) 195–6 intonation 4, 8, 23, 27, 58, 62, 81, 142–4, 148, 152, 154 intra-rater reliability 182–3, 191, 201 intrusions 172–3 Ioup, G. 150 Jenkins, J. 146 jigsaw activity 36, 102 Johnson, K. E. 161 Johnson, M. 204 Kasper, G. 37, 153–4, 157, 161, 163 Kelly, G. 152 key 170 King, L. 3 Koponen, M. 137 Krashen, S. D. 22, 46, 49 Krishnan, A. 93, 148 Kumaravadivelu, B. 24, 29, 89, 98–100 labio-dental phonemes 141–2 language acquisition 10, 19, 21–2, 45–6, 48–9, 66, 83

Index

language laboratory 20, 32, 73–5 language learning 1–2, 6, 11, 15, 19–22, 24, 30, 32, 34, 40, 46, 48–9, 53, 59–60, 68, 72, 74, 77, 79, 82–4, 91, 98, 114–15, 117, 121, 129, 134–5, 166, 176, 197 languages for specific purposes 193 Lantolf, J. P. 52, 58, 60 Larimer, R. 68–9 Larsen-Freeman, D. 19–21, 23, 29 lax vowels 141 Lazaraton, A. 8, 48, 79–81, 84, 89, 92, 95, 97–100, 126, 145, 150 learner factors 116 learner’s response 179 Lee, H. 18, 21, 36, 95, 98–9, 135 level check 194 Lewis, M. 128 lexical chunks 130 lexical fillers 130 Lightbown, P. M. 60 linguistic competence 35–6, 39, 46, 49, 153–4, 157, 183, 187 liquids 142 listening cloze test 172 listening comprehension 10–11, 21–2, 61–4, 75, 128, 134, 150, 165, 168–9, 171, 174–5, 177, 183, 201 listening log 66 LoCastro, V. 157–9, 161 locutionary meaning 153, 155–6, 162 logic puzzles 102–4, 108, 114 Long, M. H. 28, 47, 50, 66, 69, 86–7, 96, 106, 120, 132–4, 153, 169–70, 175, 190, 201, 204 Lowe, P. 32 ludic function 2 McCarthy, M. 80–4, 96 McCormack, J. 125 McElwee, S. 198 MacIntyre, P. D. 82–3, 90–1, 106 macro skills 111, 165, 168, 178, 181–2, 186 macrostrategies 24, 28–9, 84, 98, 130 manipulables 23–5, 112 manner of articulation 141–2 Maurice, K. 132 meaning building 61–2, 75 Miller, P. C. 123 misfire 158, 161 monitoring 65, 95, 135, 167 monologic task 89, 114 morphology 5–6 Moselle, M. 150 multilingualism 2–3, 14 multiple choice items 165, 170–1, 177–80

217

multi-trait scoring 187–9, 191–2 Munro, M. J. 20, 73, 140, 142–7, 150, 152, 192 Nation, I. S. 128–32, 137 natural approach 22–3 needs assessment (needs analysis) 11, 120, 193–7, 202–4 negative evidence 58–60 negotiation for meaning 45, 47–8, 83, 97, 101 Newton, J. 128–32, 137 Nguyen, C-D. 175 norm-referenced testing 185 note taking 119, 165, 174, 178 Nunan, D. 6, 16, 79–80, 112–17, 119, 121–3 objective scoring 166, 185–6 O’Keefe, A. 80–2, 84, 96 Oller, J. W. 29, 58 Olshtain, E. 5, 154–5, 163 omissions 172 opaque languages 140 open-ended items 194–5 open syllable structure 142 opinion sharing activities 37 options 160, 166, 170–1, 198 oral proficiency interview (OPI) 11, 32, 193–4, 204 Ortiz, J. 93 outcomes-based assessment 185 output 45–6, 48–9, 59–60, 73, 83–4, 136, 146, 177, 179, 183, 186 pair work 24, 42–3, 58, 71, 87, 97–8, 108, 112, 114, 122, 155, 159, 178, 190, 199 Palmer, A. S. 168 Park, H. 85 partial dictation 71, 165, 172, 174, 179 Peck, S. 7 pedagogical task 113–14, 123 perceived fluency 126, 131 Perfetti, C. A. 132 Perkins, M. R. 83 perlocutionary meaning 153, 155, 156 personae 99 phoneme-grapheme correspondence 4, 139–40 phonemes 4–6, 20, 35, 62–3, 65, 70, 79, 82, 86, 133, 139–51, 162, 168–70, 182 phonemic symbols 140, 142 phonology 4, 20, 63 Pica, T. 47–8 Pierce, J. A. 147 pitch 4, 7, 47, 62, 119, 142–4, 146 placement test 132, 160, 167

218

place of articulation 141–2 planning 8, 35, 46, 54, 57, 66–7, 77, 81, 84, 113, 116, 120, 130–1, 147, 168, 182, 193, 199 Platt, J. 4 plosives (stops) 141–2 plurilingualism 2–3, 14 Popko, J. 191 positive evidence 58 post-test (delayed post-test) 50, 175 practicality 167, 170, 181–2, 184–5, 191, 201 pragmalinguistics 157 pragmatic competence 153–4, 157, 159–60, 162, 182 pragmatics 11, 68, 153–4, 157, 160–3, 173, 182 Prator, C. H. 147 pre-test 175 Price, M. L. 107 Pridham, F. 109 primary trait scoring 186–8 probe 194 procedural knowledge 2, 6, 13–14, 35, 39, 42, 56, 188 procedures 11, 19, 24, 36, 39, 43, 82, 103, 112, 117–18, 139, 146–7, 165–7, 170–4, 177–8, 181–3, 191–4, 197, 200–2 productive skills 3, 198 proficiency 10–11, 15, 18, 30–5, 43–4, 47–8, 66, 69–70, 72, 76, 87–90, 93, 98, 104, 117–19, 122–3, 125–6, 130–1, 133, 139, 150, 163, 166, 168, 171, 173, 177, 179, 181–2, 193–4, 200–1, 203–4 progress test 167, 176, 178, 183 project 2, 11, 52, 74, 87–8, 93, 99, 111, 116–24, 149–50, 185, 190, 195–6, 203 project-based learning and teaching (PBLT) 111 propositional scoring 173 prosody 8, 81, 152 qualitative analysis 107 realia 87 real-world task (target task) 113, 123 reasoning gap activities 37, 102, 108 recasts 58 receptive skills 1, 3, 177 reciprocal talk 62 reform movement 19 register 19, 33, 35, 39, 80, 82, 102, 200–1 reliability 167, 170–1, 181–4, 186, 191, 201 research projects 118 Richard-Amato, P. 29, 204 Richards, J. C. 4–5, 17, 19–23, 29, 34, 36–7, 51, 62, 67, 77, 80, 83, 112, 114, 123, 154–6, 168–9, 173, 179 Riggenbach, H. 137 Rintell, E. 154

Index

risk-taking 107–8 Robinett, B. W. 147 Robinson, P. 50 Rodgers, T. S. 17, 19–23, 29, 34, 36–7, 112, 114, 123 Roever, C. 153, 157, 161–2 role plays 11, 37, 86, 99, 108–9, 160–3, 166, 193, 197–9, 201–4 Rose, K. R. 154, 163 Ross, S. 132 Rost, M. 46–8, 53–6, 63–8, 70, 72, 74, 77, 128, 177, 179 Savignon, S. 34, 42, 51 scaffolding 45, 51, 53–7, 59–60 Schachter, J. 146 Schleicher, L. 68–9 Schlue, K. 10 Schumann, J. H. 13 scoring criteria (objective and subjective) 166, 172–3, 175, 179, 185–7, 189, 192, 199–200 scoring rubric 191–2 Scott, M. L. 44 Scovel, T. 91 second language acquisition (SLA) 10, 45 second language (SL) contexts 2 Segalowitz, N. 126, 128–9, 137 Séguis, B. 198 selected response items 166–7, 171, 177, 194 selective listening 65–6 silent way 23, 30, 145 Situational Language Teaching 20–1, 26 situation-specific anxiety 90–1 Skehan, P. 127 Slade, D. 19–22, 28, 36, 48–9, 51–3, 81, 84, 95–7, 109, 115, 126–8, 161–2, 197 social distance 13, 157–8 social status 158, 160 sociocultural theory 10, 45, 49, 51–3, 59–60, 83, 97 sociolinguistic competence 35, 39, 49, 183, 187 sociopragmatic(s) 51, 157, 160 Spada, N. 60 speech acts 11, 86, 98–9, 102–3, 153–63, 169, 174, 178, 182, 194, 196–8 speech events 11, 153–5, 157–8, 160, 163, 199 speech functions 155, 157 speech situations 145, 153–5, 157 spoken grammar 8–10, 14, 79–80, 92 standard dictations 165, 171, 173 state anxiety 90–1 stem 48, 169–70 stereotyping 144, 148, 150–1, 158 Stewart, T. 93

Index

stimulus material 166, 169–75, 177–9, 184, 201 Stoller, F. 116–18, 120, 123 Storch, N. 14 story retelling 130, 137, 165, 174–5, 177–9, 183 strategic competence 35, 37, 39 stress 4, 8, 23, 62, 81, 142–3, 146, 154, 162 strip stories 100–2, 108 subjective scoring 166, 185–7, 191 suggestopedia 23, 30 summative assessment 167 Swain, M. 35, 37, 44, 46–9, 51, 60, 83, 98, 127 syntax 5–6, 69, 79, 104, 145, 157, 162 Tarone, E. 7, 37, 202 task 11, 15, 24–5, 40, 42, 53–7, 65–7, 70–1, 84, 87–8, 92, 98–9, 102–5, 108, 111–16, 119–24, 127, 131–2, 136, 159–60, 166, 168–70, 172–3, 175–9, 184–5, 189–90, 192, 195, 198, 200 task-based learning and teaching (TBLT) 11, 111 task continuity (or task chaining) 121 task factors 116 task posed to the learner 166, 172–3, 175, 177 Tatsuki, D. J. 163 Tavakoli, P. 125–7, 129–32, 135, 137, 201 teacher-fronted 121 temporal variables 126 tense vowels 141 Terrell, T. 22 test impact 200 Thomson, R. I. 85 Thornbury, S. 19–22, 25, 28, 36, 48–9, 51–3, 80–1, 83–5, 95–7, 99, 109, 115, 126–8, 161–2, 193–4, 197, 201 top-down processing 64 Total Physical Response (TPR) 21 trait anxiety 90–1 transactional language 2, 6 transcription 100, 108–9 transfer 36–7, 80, 144 turn bids 97, 199 Turnbull, M. 14 turn overlaps 69, 85, 97, 100, 199

219

Ullman, M. T. 6 Underwood, G. N. 147 unequal power discourse 95–6, 98, 99, 194 University of Cambridge 186 use schema activators 56 US Foreign Service Institute (FSI) 32 using multiple channels 54 utterance 4–5, 8, 22–3, 35, 41, 54–5, 57–8, 62, 68, 73, 79–85, 87, 92, 97, 101, 105, 126, 129, 132–3, 140, 143, 145, 147–9, 154–6, 159, 162, 169–71, 182, 186 utterance fluency 126, 132 validity 167, 170–1, 177, 181–4, 191–2, 204 Van den Branden, K. 111 Vanderbrook, S. 10 van Lier, L. 8, 52–4, 57, 59–60, 80, 84, 101, 127, 134, 200 Vigil, N. A. 58 Vorholt, J. 93, 109, 137, 152 vowels 4, 133, 139–42, 148 Walqui, A. 53–4, 57, 59–60, 101, 127, 134 Walters, J. 154 warm-up phase 194 washback 165, 167, 170, 181–2, 186, 188, 194, 200–2 Weber, H. 4 Wesche, M. B. 166, 199 wesche’s framework 166 Widdowson, H. G. 36 Wigglesworth, G. 14 Williams, J. 50, 58 willingness to communicate 40, 79, 82, 116 Willis, D. 112–13, 115, 121 Willis, J. 112–13, 115, 121 wind-down phase 194 Wray, A. 83 Young, D. J. 90–1, 93 Zimmerman, B. J. 67 zone of proximal development 45, 51–3, 59

220



221

222



223

224



225

226