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

Teaching Listening and
Speaking in Second
and Foreign Language
Contexts
Online resources to accompany this book are available at: http://bloomsbury.com/cw/teaching-

listening-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: contact@bloomsbury.com
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: 978-1-3500-9353-9

PB: 978-1-3500-9352-2
ePDF: 978-1-3500-9355-3
eBook: 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 205
Index 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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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, interac-
tional, 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?
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 complexi-
ties 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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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 game-
like 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.
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):
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
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
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.

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.
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?
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 class-
mate 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.
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.
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 target-
language 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. Distinguished-
level 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.
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
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 Celce-
Murcia (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.
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
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:
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 transla-
tion 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 mean-
ing 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 time-
gaining 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.
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.

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
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)
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
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.

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.
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.
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 conver-
sations 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 scaffold-
ing relate to teaching speaking and listening in L2 contexts?
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 devel-
opment. 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 → “Is this what you mean?”

Comprehension check: Speaker to listener → “Do you understand?”
Clarification request: Listener to speaker → “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.
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).
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 → Accuracy

Sociolinguistic competence → Appropriacy
Discourse competence → 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.
“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).
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, writey-
down 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 meaning-
focused 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.
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 self-
regulated 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
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).
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).

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
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.
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.
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)
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 meaning-
based feedback” (p. 674).
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.

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.
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 mean-
ing 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?
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.
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:
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 speak-
er’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
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:
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
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).
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
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.

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?
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
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
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
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.
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 self-
access 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).
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.

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.
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 influ-
enced 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.
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-in-
teractive contexts. Consider both in-class and out-of-class experiences. Try to note an example in each
quadrant in the chart below.
In-class Out-of-class
Listening 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 influ-
ence 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 Without Subtitles
First Viewing
Second Viewing
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, tele-
vision 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).
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 Attention boundaries, pointers, etc. limited to
kinesic ones) 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.
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
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)
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
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.

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,
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 concep-
tual 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 suprasegmen-
tal 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.

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.
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?
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 Out-of-class
Speaking 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—pref-
erably 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.
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)
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.

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
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
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
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
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 memo-
rize 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.
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.
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.
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
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 story-
building 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, multi-
part, 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
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
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.

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.
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 partic-
ipating 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.
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 tech-
nical, 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
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 self-
access 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,
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
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
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 ‘maxi-
tasks’ 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
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
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.

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 Students encourage L1 speakers of Learners of Mandarin communicate
Australia their TL to visit their host country or in Mandarin to speakers of Mandarin
region about Australia
2(a). Learners of ESL in Students encourage Australians and/ Learners of English communicate
Australia or their ESL classmates in English to about their home countries to people in
visit the learners’ home countries their host country
2(b). Learners of ESL in Students tell their classmates about Learners of English communicate with
Australia their (future) location in Australia other learners of English (and possible
(e.g., for work or study opportunities) additional audience members)
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.
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.
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.
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).

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.
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.
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 objec-
tive(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.
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.
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 trade-
off 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 time-
gaining 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
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.
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.

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)
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 awareness-
raising 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
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
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.
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
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.
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.

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.
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 profi-
cient 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.)
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 addi-
tion 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,
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
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 -thin 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,
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:
to-
pho- 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.
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).
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 native-
like 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
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.

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 vocab-
ulary 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
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.

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
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,
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 native-
like 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).

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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.

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

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)
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 simi-
larities 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.
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.
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
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.

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).
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 compe-
tence? 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?
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 class-
mates 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 chap-
ter 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
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 test-
takers 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.
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
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.
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).

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

First of all, .
As an example, .
Second, .
In contrast, .
Finally, .
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
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
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 some-
how 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
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 true-
false 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, multiple-
choice 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.
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 time-
consuming, but it can help the learners notice the gap between what they were trying to understand and
what they were actually able to capture.

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.
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?
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 learn-
ers’ 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.
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
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
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
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, criterion-
referenced 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.
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 time-
consuming to use, so they are not as practical as holistic scoring. They also require more time for rater
training.
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.
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 Holistic Scoring Analytic Scoring
Writing
Focus on the Specific Purpose of Primary Trait Scoring Multi-trait Scoring
Speaking or Writing

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
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
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 student-
generated 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,
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 self-
reflection 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.

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.
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).
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.
●● Semi-structured interviews are less rigid than structured interviews. The interviewer uses predeter-
mined 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 particu-
lar 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 self-
assessment, language assessment—specifically language testing—is often done to learners by
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 specific-
purpose 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.

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
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 specific-
purpose 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 role-
play 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, question-
asking 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.
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’ role-
play 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.
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 role-
play 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.
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 time-
consuming 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
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.

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.
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 listen-
ing? 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 class-
mate 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.
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-ado-
lescents, 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 anxi-
ety 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, assess-
ment (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 develop-
ment 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 teach-
ers 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 implica-
tions. 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.),
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.),
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 acquisi-
tion (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:
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:
Vanderbrook, S., Schlue, K., & Campbell, C. (1980). Discourse and second language acquisition of yes/no ques-
tions. 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, autonomy 24, 54, 57, 77, 84–5, 93, 98–9, 117
139–40, 144–8, 150–2, 183, 200 awareness-raising 130
access fluidity (lexical access) 129
acculturation 53 Bachman, L. F. 168
accuracy 33–4, 36, 49, 58–9, 67, 85, 113–14, 116, back-channeling 97, 131, 189, 199
125–9, 133–7, 151, 172, 186 Bailey, K. M. 9, 12–13, 16, 27–8, 40–1, 44, 51, 56–7, 64,
achievement test 167, 178, 184 71, 86–7, 90, 93, 106–7, 109, 137, 148, 167, 169,
ACTFL See American Council on the Teaching of 177, 179, 187, 196, 201, 204
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Bardovi-Harlig, K. 157–8
Adelson, A. 100 Beckett, G. H. 123
adjacency pairs 155 Beebe, L. M. 107
affective feedback 58 behaviorism 146
affective filter 22, 54 Berlitz method 19
affordances 45, 51–3, 59, 73, 98 bilabial phonemes 141
affricate 142 Black, C. 24, 85
Allwright, R. A. 9, 16, 27–8 Boers, F. 175
alternative methods 21 Bohlke, D. 127, 135
alveolar fricatives 142 Bolger, P. 187
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign bottom-up processing 61, 64, 75
Languages (ACTFL) 16, 33, 35, 43–4, 200 Boudreault, C. 85
analytic scoring 186–8, 201 bound morphemes 5, 168, 172–3
anaphora 102 Boustagui, E. 150
Anderson, J. R. 6 Brinton, D. M. 141
Anderson, M. 19–21, 23, 29 Brown, D. 184
Appel, G. 60 Brown, H. D. 18, 21, 29, 36, 95, 98–9, 135
appropriateness 35 Brown, J. 75
appropriation activities 84–5 Brown, J. D. 160
articulation 82, 86, 89, 126, 133, 141–2, 148 Buck, G. 128
Asher, J. J. 21 build in the recognition step 55
Ashley, A. 156 Burns, A. 35, 62, 67, 77, 82–4, 86, 89, 93, 96, 114–15,
assessment 11, 17, 31, 33–4, 36–7, 68, 70, 93, 120, 123, 125–7, 153, 169, 179, 185, 192
153, 165–7, 171–3, 175, 177–8, 181–8, 190–200, bursts 171–3
202–4
attention control 129
Cambridge English 34, 44
audiolingual method 20–1, 25–6, 30, 59, 74, 139,
Campbell, C. C. 10
145–6
Campbell, C. M. 93, 125
authenticity 68, 81, 92, 116, 165, 168–70, 182, 198,
Canale, M. 35, 37, 44
201
Cannon, A. 85
authentic materials 10, 61, 68–70, 75, 77, 120, 170,
carrier topics 18, 68
178–9
cataphora 102
automatization 127
Celce-Murcia, M. 5, 35, 141–4, 152, 154–5, 163
autonomous listening 65–7
Index 215
Chartrand, R. 179 Dailey-O’Cain, J. 14

Cheng, L. 181 debilitating anxiety 91, 107
closed items 194–5 declarative knowledge 2, 6, 8, 13–14, 39, 57, 127, 188
closed syllable structure 142 decoding 61–3, 75, 166, 168–70, 177
cognitive feedback 58 deictics 83, 97
cognitive fluency 126, 129 De Jong, N. 132
collocations 82, 128 Derwing, T. M. 20, 73, 140, 142–7, 150, 152, 192
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) diagnostic test 167, 171, 178
34, 186 dialogic speech 90
communication-gap task (information gap and two-way dictation 21, 63, 68, 71, 100, 103, 165, 169, 170–4,
information gap) 36, 85, 88–9, 113–15, 120–1, 188 177–80, 183
communication strategies 10, 31, 35, 37–44, 67, 106, dictocomp (dictogloss) 165, 173–4, 178–9
108, 127, 162, 199 direct intervention 50
communicative competence 10–11, 18–19, 31, 34–6, direct method 19–21, 27
39, 42–4, 157, 183 direct tests 181–2, 184, 188
communicative language teaching 10, 28, 31, 36, 97, discourse 5–10, 20, 33, 35–8, 42–3, 49, 54, 62–4, 79–81,
114, 122, 129, 140, 145, 173 83–5, 89, 91, 93, 95–102, 114, 131–2, 159–60, 163,
Community (or Counselling) Language Learning (CLL) 168, 170, 173–4, 182, 188, 194
22, 30 discourse competence 35, 43, 49
compare with a classmate 56 discourse completion task 159–60, 163, 182
competition 127, 148 discourse markers 83–4, 91, 101–2
complexity 69, 81, 105, 116, 125–8, 135–6, 142, 172 discrete-point testing 169–70
comprehensibility 11, 139, 145, 150 discussion task 114–15
conceptual preparation 82, 86, 89, 126, 132 distractors 160, 201
consonant clusters 142, 146, 149 Dörnyei, Z. 37–9, 43–4, 127
consonants 4, 139, 140–2, 146, 149 Douglas, D. 197, 204
construct 7, 10–11, 22, 34–5, 45, 54, 57, 61, 63, 96, Duff, P. A. 34
102, 125–6, 128, 135, 154, 166–9, 171–2, 175, 177,
179, 181–4, 186–7, 191–2, 195–7, 199–201
Earl, L. M. 167
constructed response items 166, 177, 195
Edge, J. 126
construct validity 181, 183–4
elaboration 34, 55, 67, 196
content schemata 61, 63–4, 75, 100
ellipsis 97
content validity 181, 183–4
Ellis, R. 50, 98
context-gap 115
El Tigi, M. 150
contingency 54, 57, 96
emergence 19, 32, 36, 50, 54, 57
contingency principle 54, 57
emphatic stress 143, 154, 162
continuity and coherence 53, 57
enabling skills 121, 165, 168, 169, 171, 178, 182,
contrastive analysis 145–7, 151
186–7, 201
contrastive stress 143
encounter projects 117–18
conversation 6–7, 9, 19–20, 22, 27–8, 36–8, 41, 46, 48,
environment 12–13, 22–3, 27, 40, 52, 54, 57, 68, 86–7,
68–9, 79, 84, 86, 89, 95–7, 100, 106, 109, 115, 128,
112, 122
134–5, 143, 154, 169, 184, 199, 201, 204
error analysis 145–7
Cook, G. 115
evaluation 66–7, 119, 177, 190–1, 198
Cook, V. 14
extemporaneous speaking 89, 119
corpus, corpora 82, 93
extensive listening 65–7, 72
correspondence projects 117
Council of Europe 34
criteria for evaluating tests 167, 178, 182 face validity 181, 184, 191
criterion-referenced testing 185 facilitating anxiety 91, 107
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 54 Færch, C. 37
Curran, C. 22 Farhady, H. 160
Curtis, A. 10, 17, 29, 64, 71, 167, 169, 179, 187, 198, 204 feed me back the task 55
216 Index
Ferris, D. R. 140 illocutionary meaning 156, 162

Field, J. 62–5, 67–9, 71, 74, 93, 128, 169–71, 177–8 indirect intervention 50
flow 28, 47, 54, 57, 125, 129, 141 indirect tests 181–2, 201
fluency 11, 20, 34, 36, 85, 125–37, 186, 188–9, 194, 201–2 inferencing 61, 74–5
focused and unfocused tasks 114–15, 119, 123 information gap 36, 85, 88–9, 113–15, 120–1, 188
focus-group interviews 196 input 22–4, 32, 35, 39, 45–9, 54–5, 57–9, 62, 65, 67,
Focus on Form (FonF) 46, 49–51, 60, 113, 121, 199 69–70, 72, 75–6, 83, 86, 97, 100, 103, 108, 112–13,
Fonio, F. 85 115–16, 132, 157, 175, 177, 190, 198, 201
foreign language (FL) contexts 10, 13–14, 42, 47, 118 inside-outside circle 131–2
formal schemata 61, 63, 75, 169 intake 22, 45–6, 54
formative assessment 167 integrative testing 165, 169–70, 178
formulaic language 83, 93, 127–8, 130 intelligibility 11, 139–40, 145–6, 150
formulation 82–3, 86, 89, 125–6 intensive listening 65, 67–8, 72
Fraser, B. 154, 162 interaction 2, 6–11, 13–15, 19, 24, 27, 34, 37, 41–3, 45–9,
free morphemes 5, 172 51–3, 56, 59–60, 68, 74–5, 79–80, 84, 86, 89, 95–9,
fricatives 142 101–2, 104, 105–9, 111–13, 115, 117, 121, 125, 130–1,
functionalism 36 144, 146, 150, 153–4, 157–60, 168, 193–4, 196–202
interactional language 2, 6, 80
Galante, A. 85 interactive listening 10, 65, 165, 178, 193
Galvan, J. L. 147 interactiveness 168, 170, 182
Garton, S. 126 interactivity 95
Gass, S. 46–7, 58 Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) 32
gesture 27, 86, 97, 133, 190 interlocutor 5, 8, 11, 34, 36, 38, 47–8, 53–4, 58, 79,
gisting 64 95–7, 108, 126, 150, 157–8, 162, 189, 198–9
glides (semi-vowels) 142 International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) 140, 152
glottal fricatives 142 interpersonal language 80
Goh, C. C. M. 35, 82–4, 86, 89, 93, 96, 114–15, 123, inter-rater reliability 181, 183–4, 191
125–7, 153, 185, 192 intersubjectivity 52, 54, 57
Goodwin, J. 134, 141, 144, 152 interviews (structured, semi–structured, and unstruc-
graduated dictation 165, 172–3, 179 tured) 195–6
grammar translation method 18–22, 24–5 intonation 4, 8, 23, 27, 58, 62, 81, 142–4, 148, 152, 154
grammatical competence 35 intra-rater reliability 182–3, 191, 201
graphemes 4, 139–40 intrusions 172–3
Green, T. 200 Ioup, G. 150
group work 55, 58, 97–9, 105, 107–9, 114, 122, 155,
159, 195 Jenkins, J. 146
jigsaw activity 36, 102
handover/takeover principle 54 Johnson, K. E. 161
Hatch, E. M. 96 Johnson, M. 204
Hattingh, S. D. 199
Hawkey, R. 200 Kasper, G. 37, 153–4, 157, 161, 163
Hedgcock, J. S. 140 Kelly, G. 152
Henry, J. 40–3, 57, 99, 117 key 170
hesitation phenomena 126, 128 King, L. 3
Hinkel, E. 9, 32, 51, 63, 66, 111, 114, 140, 145, 158, 163 Koponen, M. 137
holistic scoring 186–8 Krashen, S. D. 22, 46, 49
Holtgraves, T. 156 Krishnan, A. 93, 148
Horwitz, E. K. 93 Kumaravadivelu, B. 24, 29, 89, 98–100
Houck, N. R. 163
Hughes, A. 184, 187–8, 200 labio-dental phonemes 141–2
Hymes, D. 34, 36 language acquisition 10, 19, 21–2, 45–6, 48–9, 66, 83
Index 217
language laboratory 20, 32, 73–5 multi-trait scoring 187–9, 191–2

language learning 1–2, 6, 11, 15, 19–22, 24, 30, 32, 34, Munro, M. J. 20, 73, 140, 142–7, 150, 152, 192
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 Nation, I. S. 128–32, 137
languages for specific purposes 193 natural approach 22–3
Lantolf, J. P. 52, 58, 60 needs assessment (needs analysis) 11, 120, 193–7,
Larimer, R. 68–9 202–4
Larsen-Freeman, D. 19–21, 23, 29 negative evidence 58–60
lax vowels 141 negotiation for meaning 45, 47–8, 83, 97, 101
Lazaraton, A. 8, 48, 79–81, 84, 89, 92, 95, 97–100, 126, Newton, J. 128–32, 137
145, 150 Nguyen, C-D. 175
learner factors 116 norm-referenced testing 185
learner’s response 179 note taking 119, 165, 174, 178
Lee, H. 18, 21, 36, 95, 98–9, 135 Nunan, D. 6, 16, 79–80, 112–17, 119, 121–3
level check 194
Lewis, M. 128
objective scoring 166, 185–6
lexical chunks 130
O’Keefe, A. 80–2, 84, 96
lexical fillers 130
Oller, J. W. 29, 58
Lightbown, P. M. 60
Olshtain, E. 5, 154–5, 163
linguistic competence 35–6, 39, 46, 49, 153–4, 157,
omissions 172
183, 187
opaque languages 140
liquids 142
open-ended items 194–5
listening cloze test 172
open syllable structure 142
listening comprehension 10–11, 21–2, 61–4, 75, 128,
opinion sharing activities 37
134, 150, 165, 168–9, 171, 174–5, 177, 183, 201
options 160, 166, 170–1, 198
listening log 66
oral proficiency interview (OPI) 11, 32, 193–4, 204
LoCastro, V. 157–9, 161
Ortiz, J. 93
locutionary meaning 153, 155–6, 162
outcomes-based assessment 185
logic puzzles 102–4, 108, 114
output 45–6, 48–9, 59–60, 73, 83–4, 136, 146, 177, 179,
Long, M. H. 28, 47, 50, 66, 69, 86–7, 96, 106, 120,
183, 186
132–4, 153, 169–70, 175, 190, 201, 204
Lowe, P. 32
ludic function 2 pair work 24, 42–3, 58, 71, 87, 97–8, 108, 112, 114,
122, 155, 159, 178, 190, 199
Palmer, A. S. 168
McCarthy, M. 80–4, 96
Park, H. 85
McCormack, J. 125
partial dictation 71, 165, 172, 174, 179
McElwee, S. 198
Peck, S. 7
MacIntyre, P. D. 82–3, 90–1, 106
pedagogical task 113–14, 123
macro skills 111, 165, 168, 178, 181–2, 186
perceived fluency 126, 131
macrostrategies 24, 28–9, 84, 98, 130
Perfetti, C. A. 132
manipulables 23–5, 112
Perkins, M. R. 83
manner of articulation 141–2
perlocutionary meaning 153, 155, 156
Maurice, K. 132
personae 99
meaning building 61–2, 75
phoneme-grapheme correspondence 4, 139–40
Miller, P. C. 123
phonemes 4–6, 20, 35, 62–3, 65, 70, 79, 82, 86, 133,
misfire 158, 161
139–51, 162, 168–70, 182
monitoring 65, 95, 135, 167
phonemic symbols 140, 142
monologic task 89, 114
phonology 4, 20, 63
morphology 5–6
Pica, T. 47–8
Moselle, M. 150
Pierce, J. A. 147
multilingualism 2–3, 14
pitch 4, 7, 47, 62, 119, 142–4, 146
multiple choice items 165, 170–1, 177–80
placement test 132, 160, 167
218 Index
place of articulation 141–2 risk-taking 107–8

planning 8, 35, 46, 54, 57, 66–7, 77, 81, 84, 113, 116, Robinett, B. W. 147
120, 130–1, 147, 168, 182, 193, 199 Robinson, P. 50
Platt, J. 4 Rodgers, T. S. 17, 19–23, 29, 34, 36–7, 112, 114, 123
plosives (stops) 141–2 Roever, C. 153, 157, 161–2
plurilingualism 2–3, 14 role plays 11, 37, 86, 99, 108–9, 160–3, 166, 193,
Popko, J. 191 197–9, 201–4
positive evidence 58 Rose, K. R. 154, 163
post-test (delayed post-test) 50, 175 Ross, S. 132
practicality 167, 170, 181–2, 184–5, 191, 201 Rost, M. 46–8, 53–6, 63–8, 70, 72, 74, 77, 128, 177,
pragmalinguistics 157 179
pragmatic competence 153–4, 157, 159–60, 162, 182
pragmatics 11, 68, 153–4, 157, 160–3, 173, 182 Savignon, S. 34, 42, 51
Prator, C. H. 147 scaffolding 45, 51, 53–7, 59–60
pre-test 175 Schachter, J. 146
Price, M. L. 107 Schleicher, L. 68–9
Pridham, F. 109 Schlue, K. 10
primary trait scoring 186–8 Schumann, J. H. 13
probe 194 scoring criteria (objective and subjective) 166, 172–3,
procedural knowledge 2, 6, 13–14, 35, 39, 42, 56, 188 175, 179, 185–7, 189, 192, 199–200
procedures 11, 19, 24, 36, 39, 43, 82, 103, 112, scoring rubric 191–2
117–18, 139, 146–7, 165–7, 170–4, 177–8, 181–3, Scott, M. L. 44
191–4, 197, 200–2 Scovel, T. 91
productive skills 3, 198 second language acquisition (SLA) 10, 45
proficiency 10–11, 15, 18, 30–5, 43–4, 47–8, 66, 69–70, second language (SL) contexts 2
72, 76, 87–90, 93, 98, 104, 117–19, 122–3, 125–6, Segalowitz, N. 126, 128–9, 137
130–1, 133, 139, 150, 163, 166, 168, 171, 173, 177, Séguis, B. 198
179, 181–2, 193–4, 200–1, 203–4 selected response items 166–7, 171, 177, 194
progress test 167, 176, 178, 183 selective listening 65–6
project 2, 11, 52, 74, 87–8, 93, 99, 111, 116–24, silent way 23, 30, 145
149–50, 185, 190, 195–6, 203 Situational Language Teaching 20–1, 26
project-based learning and teaching (PBLT) 111 situation-specific anxiety 90–1
propositional scoring 173 Skehan, P. 127
prosody 8, 81, 152 Slade, D. 19–22, 28, 36, 48–9, 51–3, 81, 84, 95–7, 109,
115, 126–8, 161–2, 197
qualitative analysis 107 social distance 13, 157–8
social status 158, 160
realia 87 sociocultural theory 10, 45, 49, 51–3, 59–60, 83, 97
real-world task (target task) 113, 123 sociolinguistic competence 35, 39, 49, 183, 187
reasoning gap activities 37, 102, 108 sociopragmatic(s) 51, 157, 160
recasts 58 Spada, N. 60
receptive skills 1, 3, 177 speech acts 11, 86, 98–9, 102–3, 153–63, 169, 174,
reciprocal talk 62 178, 182, 194, 196–8
reform movement 19 speech events 11, 153–5, 157–8, 160, 163, 199
register 19, 33, 35, 39, 80, 82, 102, 200–1 speech functions 155, 157
reliability 167, 170–1, 181–4, 186, 191, 201 speech situations 145, 153–5, 157
research projects 118 spoken grammar 8–10, 14, 79–80, 92
Richard-Amato, P. 29, 204 standard dictations 165, 171, 173
Richards, J. C. 4–5, 17, 19–23, 29, 34, 36–7, 51, 62, 67, state anxiety 90–1
77, 80, 83, 112, 114, 123, 154–6, 168–9, 173, 179 stem 48, 169–70
Riggenbach, H. 137 stereotyping 144, 148, 150–1, 158
Rintell, E. 154 Stewart, T. 93
Index 219
stimulus material 166, 169–75, 177–9, 184, 201 Ullman, M. T. 6

Stoller, F. 116–18, 120, 123 Underwood, G. N. 147
Storch, N. 14 unequal power discourse 95–6, 98, 99, 194
story retelling 130, 137, 165, 174–5, 177–9, 183 University of Cambridge 186
strategic competence 35, 37, 39 use schema activators 56
stress 4, 8, 23, 62, 81, 142–3, 146, 154, 162 US Foreign Service Institute (FSI) 32
strip stories 100–2, 108 using multiple channels 54
subjective scoring 166, 185–7, 191 utterance 4–5, 8, 22–3, 35, 41, 54–5, 57–8, 62, 68, 73,
suggestopedia 23, 30 79–85, 87, 92, 97, 101, 105, 126, 129, 132–3, 140,
summative assessment 167 143, 145, 147–9, 154–6, 159, 162, 169–71, 182, 186
Swain, M. 35, 37, 44, 46–9, 51, 60, 83, 98, 127 utterance fluency 126, 132
syntax 5–6, 69, 79, 104, 145, 157, 162
validity 167, 170–1, 177, 181–4, 191–2, 204
Tarone, E. 7, 37, 202 Van den Branden, K. 111
task 11, 15, 24–5, 40, 42, 53–7, 65–7, 70–1, 84, 87–8, Vanderbrook, S. 10
92, 98–9, 102–5, 108, 111–16, 119–24, 127, 131–2, van Lier, L. 8, 52–4, 57, 59–60, 80, 84, 101, 127, 134,
136, 159–60, 166, 168–70, 172–3, 175–9, 184–5, 200
189–90, 192, 195, 198, 200 Vigil, N. A. 58
task-based learning and teaching (TBLT) 11, 111 Vorholt, J. 93, 109, 137, 152
task continuity (or task chaining) 121 vowels 4, 133, 139–42, 148
task factors 116
task posed to the learner 166, 172–3, 175, 177 Walqui, A. 53–4, 57, 59–60, 101, 127, 134
Tatsuki, D. J. 163 Walters, J. 154
Tavakoli, P. 125–7, 129–32, 135, 137, 201 warm-up phase 194
teacher-fronted 121 washback 165, 167, 170, 181–2, 186, 188, 194, 200–2
temporal variables 126 Weber, H. 4
tense vowels 141 Wesche, M. B. 166, 199
Terrell, T. 22 wesche’s framework 166
test impact 200 Widdowson, H. G. 36
Thomson, R. I. 85 Wigglesworth, G. 14
Thornbury, S. 19–22, 25, 28, 36, 48–9, 51–3, 80–1, Williams, J. 50, 58
83–5, 95–7, 99, 109, 115, 126–8, 161–2, 193–4, 197, willingness to communicate 40, 79, 82, 116
201 Willis, D. 112–13, 115, 121
top-down processing 64 Willis, J. 112–13, 115, 121
Total Physical Response (TPR) 21 wind-down phase 194
trait anxiety 90–1 Wray, A. 83
transactional language 2, 6
transcription 100, 108–9
Young, D. J. 90–1, 93
transfer 36–7, 80, 144
turn bids 97, 199
Turnbull, M. 14 Zimmerman, B. J. 67
turn overlaps 69, 85, 97, 100, 199 zone of proximal development 45, 51–3, 59

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Listening and

Online resources to accompany this book are available at: http://bloomsbury.com/cw/teaching-

Language Learner Strategies, Michael James Grenfell and Vee Harris

BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks

First published in Great Britain 2020

Copyright © Kathleen M. Bailey, 2020

For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. vi constitute an extension of this copyright

Cover image © Lazy_Bear / iStock

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-9353-9

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

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

Teaching Speaking and Listening: An

1.2 What We Know

1.2.1 Second and Foreign Language Teaching Contexts

1.2.2 Multilingualism and Plurilingualism

1.2.3 Components of Spoken Language

1.2.3.1 The Sound System

1 He’s a doctor. (statement of fact)

1.2.3.2 Words and Word Order Rules

1.2.4 Knowing About Versus Knowing How

1.2.5 Transactional, Interactional, and Ludic Language

J: That’s like on—Ernie and Bert—(roar)

1.2.6 Introducing Spoken Grammar

1.2.7 An Example of Spoken Grammar

T: Here’s, here’s another useful word. [Writing on the blackboard.]

1.3 About This Book

1.5.1 Language Use in Learning Contexts

1.5.2 Use of the First Language in Lessons

1.6 Concluding Comments

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

Teaching Speaking and Listening

1 What teaching methods have prioritized the development of L2 listening?

2.2 What We Know

2.2.1 The Grammar-Translation Method

2.2.2 The Reform Movement

2.2.3 The Direct Method

2.2.4 The Audiolingual Method

2.2.5 Situational Language Teaching

2.2.6 Alternative Methods

2.2.6.1 Total Physical Response

2.2.6.2 The Natural Approach

2.2.6.3 Community Language Learning

2.2.6.5 The Silent Way

2.2.7 Concerns about Language Teaching Methods

2.3 Practical Activities

2.6 Concluding Comments

Language Proficiency and

1 What is language proficiency?

3.2 What We Know

3.2.1 Language Proficiency

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

T: Here’s, here’s another useful word. [Writing on the blackboard.]