Te a ch in g List e n in g a n d Spe a k in g:

Fr om Th e or y t o Pr a ct ice

Jack C. Richards

I n t r odu ct ion

Courses in list ening and speaking skills have a prom inent place in language
program s around t he world t oday. Ever- growing needs for fluency in English
around t he world as a consequence of t he role of English as t he world’s
int ernat ional language have given priorit y t o finding m ore effect ive ways t o t each
English and it is t herefore t im ely t o review what our current assum pt ions and
pract ices are concerning t he t eaching of t hese crucial language skills. Our
underst anding of t he nat ure of list ening and speaking have undergone
considerable changes in recent years however, and in t his paper I will explore
what som e of t hose changes are and what t heir im plicat ions are for classroom
t eaching and m at erials design.

The t eaching of list ening has at t ract ed a great er level of int erest in recent years
t han it did in t he past . Universit y ent rance exam s, school leaving and ot her
exam inat ions now oft en include a list ening com ponent , acknowledging t hat
list ening skills are a core com ponent of second language proficiency , and also
reflect ing t he assum pt ion t hat if list ening isn’t t est ed, t eachers won’t t each it .
Earlier views of list ening saw it as t he m ast ery of discret e skills or m icroskills,
such as recognizing reduced form s of words, recognizing cohesive devices in
t ext s, and ident ifying key words in a t ext , and t hat t hese skills should form t he
focus of t eaching. Lat er views of list ening drew on t he filed of cognit ive
psychology, which int roduced t he not ions of bot t om - up and t op- down processing
and t o t he role of prior knowledge and schem a in com prehension. List ening cam e
t o be seen as an int erpret ive process. At t he sam e t im e t he field of discourse
analysis and conversat ional analysis revealed a great deal about t he nat ure and
organizat ion of spoken discourse and lead t o a realizat ion t hat writ t en t ext s read
aloud could not provide a suit able basis for developing t he abilit ies needed t o
process real- t im e aut hent ic discourse. Current views of list ening hence em phasize
t he role of t he list ener, who is seen an act ive part icipant in list ening, em ploying
st rat egies t o facilit at e, m onit or, and evaluat e his or her list ening.

1
List ening has also been considered from a furt her perspect ive in recent years
when it is exam ined in relat ion not only t o com prehension, but also t o language
learning. Since list ening can provide m uch of t he input and dat a learners receive
in language learning, an im port ant quest ion is, how can at t ent ion t o t he language
t he list ener hears, facilit at e second language learning? This raises t he issue of t he
role “ not icing” and conscious awareness of language form , and how not icing can
be part of t he process by which learners can incorporat e new words form s, and
st ruct ures int o t heir developing com m unicat ive com pet ence. This role for list ening
will also be exam ined here.

Approaches t o t he t eaching of speaking in EFL/ ESL have been m ore st rongly

influenced by fads and fashions t han t he t eaching of list ening. “ Speaking” in
t radit ional m et hodologies usually m eant repeat ing aft er t he t eacher, m em orizing
a dialog, or responding t o drills, reflect ing t he sent ence- based view of proficiency
prevailing in t he audiolingual and ot her drill- based or repet it ion- based
m et hodologies of t he 1970s. The em ergence of com m unicat ive language
t eaching in t he 1980s lead t o changed views of syllabuses and m et hodology,
which are cont inuing t o shape approaches t o t eaching speaking skills t oday.
Gram m ar- based syllabuses were replaced by com m unicat ive syllabuses built
around not ion, funct ions, skills, t asks or ot her non- gram m at ical unit s of
organizat ion. Fluency becam e a goal for speaking courses and t his could be
developed t hrough t he use of inform at ion- gap and ot her t asks t hat required
learners t o at t em pt real com m unicat ion despit e lim it ed proficiency in English. I n
so doing t hey would develop com m unicat ion st rat egies and engage in negot iat ion
of m eaning, bot h of which were considered essent ial t o t he developm ent of oral
skills.

The not ion of English as an int ernat ional language has also prom pt ed a revision
of t he not ion of com m unicat ive com pet ence t o include t he not ion of int ercult ural
com pet ence. This shift s t he focus t o learning how t o com m unicat e in cross-
cult ural set t ings, where nat ive- speaker norm s of com m unicat ion m ay not be a
priorit y. At t he sam e t im e it is now accept ed t hat m odels for oral int eract ion in
classroom m at erials cannot be sim ply based on t he int uit ions of t ext book writ ers
but should be inform ed by t he findings of conversat ional analysis and t he analysis
of real speech.

2
Approaches t o t he t eaching of list ening and speaking will be explored here in t he
light of t he kinds of issues discussed above. My goal is t o exam ine what applied
linguist ics research and t heory says about t he nat ure of list ening and speaking
skills, and t hen t o explore what t he im plicat ions are for classroom t eaching. We
will begin wit h exam ining t he t eaching of list ening

1 : Th e Te a chin g of List e nin g

I wish t o consider list ening from t wo different perspect ives, which I refer t o as
list ening as com prehension, and t he second, list ening as acquisit ion.

List e n in g As Com pr e h e n sion

List ening as com prehension is t he t radit ional way of t hinking about t he nat ure of
list ening. I ndeed, in m ost m et hodology m anuals list ening, and list ening
com prehension are synonym ous. This view of list ening is based on t he
assum pt ion t hat t he m ain funct ion of list ening in second language learning is t o
facilit at e underst anding of spoken discourse. We will exam ine t his view of
list ening in som e det ail before considering a com plem ent ary view of list ening –
list ening as acquisit ion. This lat t er view of list ening considers how list ening can
provide input which t riggers t he furt her developm ent of second language
proficiency.

Ch a r a ct e r ist ics of spok e n discou r se

I n order t o underst and t he nat ure of list ening processes, we need t o consider
som e of t he charact erist ics of spoken discourse and t he special problem s it poses
for list eners. Spoken discourse has very different charact erist ics from writ t en
discourse and t hese differences can add a num ber of dim ensions t o our
underst anding of how we process speech. For exam ple spoken discourse is
usually inst ant aneous. The list ener m ust process it “ on- line” and t here is oft en no
chance t o list en t o it again. Spok en discourse also oft en st rikes t he second
language list ener as being very fast , alt hough speech rat es vary considerably .
Radio m onologs m ay cont ain 160 words per m inut e, while conversat ion can
consist of up t o 220 words per m inut e. The im pression of fast er or slower speech
generally result s from t he am ount of int ra clausal pausing t hat speakers m ake
use of. Unlike writ t en discourse, spoken discourse is usually unplanned and oft en
reflect s t he processes of const ruct ion such as hesit at ions, reduced form s, fillers,
and repeat s. Spoken discourse has also been described as having a linear

3
st ruct ure, com pared t o a hierarchical st ruct ure for writ t en discourse. Whereas t he
unit of organizat ion of writ t en discourse is t he sent ence, spoken language is
usually delivered one clause at a t im e and longer ut t erances in conv ersat ion
generally consist of several clauses co- ordinat ed. Most of t he clauses used are
sim ple conj unct s or adj unct s. Spoken t ext s t oo are oft en cont ext dependent and
personal, oft en assum ing shared background knowledge. Last ly, spoke t ext s m ay
be spoken wit h m any different accent s, from st andard t o non- st andard, t o
regional, non- nat ive, and so on.

Un de r st a n din g spok e n discou r se : bot t om - u p a n d t op- dow n pr oce ssin g

Two different kinds of processes are involved in underst anding spoken discourse.
These are oft en referred t o as bot t om - up and t op- down processing. Bot t om - up
processing refers t o using t he incom ing input as t he basis for underst anding t he
m essage. Com prehension begins wit h t he dat a t hat has been received which is
analysed as successive levels of organizat ion – sounds, words, clauses,
sent ences, t ext s – unt il m eaning is arrived at . Com prehension is viewed as a
process of decoding.

The list ener’s lexical and gram m at ical com pet ence in a language provides t he
basis for bot t om - up processing. The input is scanned for fam iliar words, and
gram m at ical knowledge is used t o work out t he relat ionship bet ween elem ent s of
sent ences. Clark and Clark ( 1977: 49) sum m arize t his view of list ening in t he
following way:

1. They [ list eners] t ake in raw speech and hold a phonological represent at ion of it
in working m em ory.
2. They im m ediat ely at t em pt t o organize t he phonological represent at ion int o
const it uent s, ident ifying t heir cont ent and funct ion.
3. They ident ify each const it uent and t hen const ruct underlying proposit ions,
building cont inually ont o a hierarchical represent at ion of proposit ions.
4. Once t hey have ident ified t he proposit ions for a const it uent , t hey ret ain t hem
in working m em ory and at som e point purge m em ory of t he phonological
represent at ion. I n doing t his, t hey forget t he exact wording and ret ain t he
m eaning.

We can illust rat e t his wit h an exam ple. I m agine I said t he following t o you:

“ The guy I sat next t o on t he bus t his m orning on t he way t o work was t elling m e
he runs a Thai rest aurant in Chinat own. Apparent ly it ’s very popular at t he
m om ent .”

I n order t o underst and t his ut t erance using bot t om - up processing, we have t o

m ent ally break t he ut t erance down int o it s com ponent s. This is referred t o as

4
“ chunking” and here are t he chunks t hat guide us t o t he underlying core m eaning
of t he ut t erances.

t he guy
I sat next t o on t he bus
t his m orning
was t elling m e
he runs a Thai rest aurant in Chinat own
apparent ly it ’s very popular
at t he m om ent

The chunks help us ident ify t he underlying proposit ions t he ut t erances expresses,
nam ely;

I was on t he bus.
There was a guy next t o m e.
We t alk ed.
He said he runs a Thai rest aurant .
I t ’s in Chinat own.
I t ’s very popular now.

I t is t hese unit s of m eaning which we rem em ber, and not t he form in which we
init ially heard t hem . Our knowledge of gram m ar helps us find t he appropriat e
chunk s, and t he speaker also assist s us in t his process t hrough int onat ion and
pausing.

Te a ch in g bot t om - u p pr oce ssin g

Learners need a large vocabulary and a good working knowledge of sent ence
st ruct ure t o be able t o process t ext s bot t om - up. Exercises t hat develop bot t om -
up processing help t he learner t o do such t hings as t he following:

Ret ain input while it is being processes

Recognize word and clause divisions
Recognize key words
Recognize key t ransit ions in a discourse
Recognize gram m at ical relat ions bet ween key elem ent s in sent ences
Use st ress and int onat ion t o ident ify word and sent ence funct ions

Many t radit ional classroom list ening act ivit ies focus prim ary on bot t om - up
processing, exercises such as dict at ion, cloze list ening, t he use of m ult iple choice
quest ions aft er a t ext and sim ilar act ivit ies which require close and det ailed
recognit ion and processing of t he input and
which assum e t hat everyt hing t he list ener needs t o underst and is cont ained in
t he input .

5
I n classroom m at erials exam ples of t he kinds of kinds of t asks t hat develop t hese
bot t om - up list ening skills would t hose t hat require list eners t o do t he following
kinds of t hings:
I dent ifying t he referent s of pronouns in an ut t erance
Recognize t he t im e reference of an ut t erance
Dist inguish bet ween posit ive and negat ive st at em ent s
Recognize t he order in words occurred in an ut t erance
I dent ify sequence m arkers
I dent ify key words t hat occurred in a spoken t ext
I dent ify which m odal verbs occurred in a spoken t ext

Here are som e exam ples of list ening t asks t hat develop bot t om - up processing:

a) St udent s list en t o posit ive and negat ive st at em ent s and choose an appropriat e
form of agreem ent .

St udent s hear: St udent s choose t he correct response

That ’s a nice cam era. Yes No
That ’s not a very good one. Yes No
This coffee isn’t hot . Yes No
This m eal is really t ast y. Yes No

b) The following exercise pract ices list ening for word st ress as a m arker of t he
inform at ion focus of a sent ence. St udent s list en t o quest ions t hat have t wo
possible inform at ion focuses and use st ress t o ident ify t he appropriat e focus.
( Words in it alic are st ressed) .

St udent s hear St udent s check inform at ion focus

The bank’s downt own branch Where When
is closed t oday.
I s t he cit y office open on Sunday? Where When
I ’m going t o t he m useum t oday. Where When

c) The following act ivit y helps st udent s develop t he abilit y t o ident ify key words.

St udent s hear:
My hom et own is a nice place t o visit because it is close t o a beach and t here are
lot s of int erest ing walks you can do in t he surrounding count ryside.

St udent s’ t ask:
Which of t hese words do you hear? Num ber t hem in t he order y ou hear t hem .

beach shops walks hom et own count ryside schools nice

6
Top- down processing, on t he ot her hand, refers t o t he use of back ground
knowledge in underst anding t he m eaning of a m essage. Whereas bot t om - up
processing goes from language t o m eaning, t op- down processing goes from
m eaning t o language. Background knowledge m ay t ake several form s. I t m ay be
previous knowledge about t he t opic of discourse, it m ay be sit uat ional or
cont ext ual knowledge, or it m ay be knowledge in t he form of “ schem at a” or
“ script s” – plans about t he overall st ruct ure of event s and t he relat ionships
bet ween t hem .

For exam ple consider how we respond t o t he following ut t erance:

“ I heard on t he news t here was a big eart hquake in Los Angeles last night .”

On recognizing t he word “ eart hquake” we generat e a set of quest ions we want t o

hear or obt ain responses t o:
Where exact ly was t he eart hquake?
How big was it ?
Did it cause a lot of dam age?
Were m any people killed or inj ured?
What rescue effort s are under way?

These quest ions guide us t hrough t he underst anding of any subsequent discourse
t hat we hear and t hey focus our list ening on what is said about t he quest ions.

Or consider t his exam ple. I m agine I say t he following t o a colleague at m y office

one m orning:
“ I am going t o t he dent ist t his aft ernoon.”

This ut t erance act ivat es a schem a for “ going t o t he dent ist ” . This schem a can be
t hought of as organized around t he following dim ensions:

A set t ing: ( e.g. t he dent ist ’s surgery)

Part icipant s: ( e.g. t he dent ist , t he pat ient , t he dent ist ’s assist ant )
Goals: ( e.g. t o have a check up or t o replace a filling)
Procedures: ( e.g. inj ect ions, drilling, rinsing)
Out com es: ( e.g. fixing t he problem , pain, discom fort )

When I ret urn t o m y office t he following exchange t akes places bet ween m y
colleague and I :

“ So how was it ?”
“ Fine. I didn’t feel a t hing” .

7
Because speaker and hearer share underst anding of t he “ going t o t he dent ist
schem a” t he det ails of t he visit need not be spelled out . A m inim um am ount of
inform at ion is given t o enable t he part icipant s t o underst and what happened. This
is anot her exam ple of t he use of t op- down processing.

Much of our knowledge of t he world consist s of knowledge about specific

sit uat ions, t he people one m ight expect t o encount er in such sit uat ions, what
t heir goals and purposes are, and how t hey t ypically accom plish t hem . Likewise
we have knowledge of t housands of t opics and concept s and t heir associat ed
m eanings and links t o ot her t opics and concept s. I n applying t his prior knowledge
about t hings, concept s, people and event s t o a part icular ut t erance about a
specific t opic or t opic, com prehension can oft en proceed from t he t op down. The
act ual discourse heard is used t o confirm expect at ions and t o fill out det ails.

Consider t he m eaning of t he expression “ Good luck! ” and how it ’s m eaning would

differ if said as a response t o t he following st at em ent s:
a) I ’m going t o t he casino.
b) I ’m going t o t he dent ist .
c) I ’m going t o a j ob int erview.
The m eaning of “ good luck” differs according t o t he sit uat ion we m ent ally refer it
t o, according t o t he background knowledge we bring t o each sit uat ion when it is
used.

I f t he list ener is unable t o m ake use of t op- down processing, an ut t erance or

discourse m ay be incom prehensible. Bot t om - up processing alone oft en prov ides
an insufficient basis for com prehension. Consider t he following narrat iv e, for
exam ple, and read it carefully one or t wo t im es. What is t he t opic?

Sally first t ried set t ing loose a t eam of gophers. The plan backfired when
a dog chased t hem away. She t hen ent ert ained a group of t eenagers and
was delight ed when t hey brought t heir m ot orcycles. Unfort unat ely, she
failed t o find a Peeping Tom list ed in t he Yellow Pages. Furt herm ore, her
st ereo syst em was not loud enough. The crab grass m ight have worked
but she didn’t have a fan t hat was sufficient ly powerful. The obscene
phone calls gave her hope unt il t he num ber was changed. She t hought
about calling a door t o door salesm an but decided t o hang up a
clot hesline inst ead. I t was t he inst allat ion of blinking neon light s across
t he st reet t hat did t he t rick. She event ually fram ed t he ad from t he
classified sect ion.
St ein and Albridge 1978

8
At first t he narrat ive is virt ually incom prehensible. However once a schem a is
provided t o apply t o t he narrat ive – “ Get t ing rid of a t roublesom e neighbor” – t he
reader can m ake use of t op- down processing and t he elem ent s of t he st ory begin
t o fit in place as t he writ er describes a series of act ions she t ook t o t ry t o annoy
her neighbor and cause him t o leave.

Te a ch in g t op- dow n pr oce ssin g

Exercises t hat require t op- down processing develop t he learner’s abilit y t o do t he

following:

Use key words t o const ruct t he schem a of a discourse

I nfer t he set t ing for a t ext
I nfer t he role of t he part icipant s and t heir goals
I nfer causes or effect s
I nfer unst at ed det ails of a sit uat ion
Ant icipat e quest ions relat ed t o t he t opic or sit uat ion

The following act ivit ies develop t op- down list ening skills.

St udent s generat e a set of quest ions t hey expect t o hear about a t opic and list en
t o see if t hey are answered.
St udent s generat e a list of t hings t hey already know about a t opic and t hings
t hey would like t o learn m ore about . Then list en and com pare.
St udent s read one speaker’s part in a conversat ion, predict t he ot her speaker’s
part , t hen list en and com pare.
St udent s read a list of key point s t o be covered in a t alk, t hen list en t o see which
ones were m ent ioned.
St udent s list en t o part of a st ory, com plet e t he rest of it , t hen list en and com pare
endings.
St udent s read news headlines, guess what happened, t hen list en t o t he news
it em s and com pare.

Com bin in g bot t om - u p a n d t op- dow n list e n in g in a list e n in g le sson

I n real world list ening, bot h bot t om - up and t op- down processing generally occur
t oget her, t he ext ent t o which one or t he ot her dom inat es depending on t he
list ener’s fam iliarit y wit h t he t opic and cont ent of a t ext , t he densit y of
inform at ion in a t ext , t he t ext t ype, and t he list ener’s purpose in list ening. An
experienced cook, for exam ple, m ight list en t o a radio chef describing a recipe for
cooking chicken and list en t o com pare t he chef’s recipe wit h her own. She has a
precise schem a t o apply t o t he t ask and list ens t o regist er sim ilar and differences.
She m akes m ore use of t op- down processing. A novice cook list ening t o t he sam e
program however, m ight list en wit h m uch great er at t ent ion t rying t o ident ify
each st ep in order t o writ e down t he recipe. Here, far m ore bot t om - up processing
is needed.

9
A t ypical lesson sequence in current t eaching m at erials involves a t hree part
lesson sequence consist ing of pre- list ening, while list ening and post - list ening and
cont ains act ivit ies which link bot t om - up and t op- down list ening ( Field, 1998) . The
pre- list ening phase prepares t he st udent s for bot h t op- down and bot t om - up
processing t hrough act ivit ies involving act ivat ing prior knowledge, m aking
predict ions, and reviewing key vocabulary. The while- list ening phase focuses on
com prehension t hrough exercises which require select ive list ening, gist list ening,
sequencing et c. The post - list ening phase t ypically involves a response t o
com prehension and m ay require st udent s t o give opinions about a t opic. Howev er
it can also include a bot t om - up focus if t he t eacher and t he list eners exam ine t he
t ext s or part s of t he t ext in det ail, focussing on sect ions t hat st udent s could not
follow. This m ay involve a m icro- analysis of sect ions of t he t ext t o enable
st udent s t o recognize such feat ure as blends, reduced words, ellipsis et c and
ot her feat ures of spoken discourse t hat t hey were unable t o process.or recognize.

List e n ing St r a t e gie s

Successful list ening can also be looked at in t erm s of t he st rat egies t he list ener
m akes use of when list ening. Does t he learner focus m ainly on t he cont ent of a
t ext , or does he or she also consider how t o list en? A focus on how t o list en raises
t he issues of list ening st rat egies. St rat egies can be t hought of as t he ways in
which a learner approaches and m anages a t ask and list eners can be t aught
effect ive ways of approaching and m anaging t heir list ening. These act ivit ies seek
t o involve list eners act ively in t he process of list ening.

Buck ( 2001,104) ident ifies t wo kinds of st rat egies in list ening:

Cogn it iv e st r a t e gie s: t hose m ent al act ivit ies relat ed t o com prehending
and st oring input in working m em ory or long- t erm m em ory for lat er
ret rieval;

• Com prehension processes: associat ed wit h t he processing of linguist ic and

•
non- linguist ic input ;
St oring and m em ory processes: associat ed wit h t he st oring of linguist ic

•
and non- linguist ic input in working m em ory or long- t erm m em ory
Using and ret rieval processes: associat ed wit h accessing m em ory, t o be
readied for out put

M e t a cogn it iv e st r a t e gie s: t hose conscious or unconscious m ent al

act ivit ies t hat perform an execut ive funct ion in t he m anagem ent of cognit ive
st rat egies;

10
 • Assessing t he sit uat ion: t aking st ock of condit ions surrounding a language
t ask by assessing one’s own knowledge, one’s available int ernal and
ext ernal resources and t he const raint s of t he sit uat ion before engaging in

•
a t ask
Monit oring: det erm ining t he effect iveness of one’s own or anot her’s

•
perform ance while engaged in a t ask;
Self- evaluat ing: det erm ining t he effect iveness of one’s own or anot her’s

•
perform ance aft er engaging in t he act ivit y;
Self- t est ing: t est ing oneself t o det erm ine t he effect iveness of one’s own
language use or t he lack t hereof

Goh ( 1997,1998) shows how t he m et acognit ive act ivit ies of planning, m onit oring,
and evaluat ing can be applied t o t he t eaching of list ening.

Met acognit ive st rat egies for self- regulat ion in learner list ening
Pla n n in g This is a st rat egy for det erm ining lear ning obj ect ives and deciding
t he m eans by which t he obj ect ives can be achiev ed.

General list ening I dent ify learning obj ect ives for list ening dev elopm ent
dev elopm ent Det erm ine ways t o achieve t hese obj ect ives
Set realist ic short - t erm and long- t erm goals
Seek opport unit ies for list ening pract ice

Specific list ening Preview m ain ideas before list ening

t ask Rehearse language ( e.g. pronunciat ion) necessary for t he t ask
Decide in advance which aspect s of t he t ext t o concent rat e on

M onit or ing This is a st rat egy for checking on t he progress in t he course of

learning or carrying out a learning t ask
General list ening Consider progress against a set of pre- det erm ined crit eria
dev elopm ent Det erm ine how close it is t o achieving short - t erm or long- t erm goals
Check and see if t he sam e m ist akes are st ill being m ade

Specific list ening Check underst anding during list ening

t ask Check t he appropr iat eness and t he accuracy of w hat is under st ood
and com pare it wit h new inform at ion
I dent ify t he source of difficult y

Eva lu a t in g This is a st rat egy for det erm ining t he success of t he out com e of an
at t em pt t o learn or com plet e a learning t ask.
General list ening Assess list ening pr ogress against a set of pre- det erm ined crit eria
dev elopm ent Assess t he effect iveness of learning and pract ice st rat egies
Assess t he appr opriat eness of lear ning goals and obj ect ives set

Specific list ening Check t he appropr iat eness and t he accuracy of w hat has been
t ask underst ood
Det erm ine t he effect iveness of st rat egies used t he t ask
Assess overall com prehension of t he t ext

Goh and Yusnit a ( 2006) describe t he effect iveness of st rat egy inst ruct ion am ong
a group of 11 and 12 year old ESL learners in Singapore.
Eight list ening lessons which com bined guided reflect ion and t eacher- led
process- based discussions were conduct ed. At t he end of t he period of
m et acognit ive inst ruct ion, t he children report ed in t heir writ t en diaries a
deeper underst anding of t he nat ure and t he dem ands of list ening, increased

11
 confidence in com plet ing list ening t asks, and bet t er st rat egic knowledge for
coping wit h com prehension difficult ies. There was also an increase in t he
scores in t he list ening exam inat ions of t he m aj orit y of t he st udent s,
part icularly t he weaker list eners, suggest ing t hat m et acognit ive inst ruct ion
also had a direct im pact on list ening perform ance.

Anot her approach t o t he incorporat ing list ening st rat egies in a list ening lesson
involves a cycle of act ivit ies, as seen below.

St eps in guided m et acognit ive sequence in a list ening lesson from Goh 2006

St e p Act ivit y

St ep 1 Pr e - list e ning a ct ivit y

I n pair s, st udent s predict t he possible w or ds and phrases t hat t hey m ight hear .
They w rit e down t heir predict ions. They m ay writ e som e w ords in t heir first
language.

St ep 2 Fir st list e n
As t hey are list ening t o t he t ext , st udent s under line or circle t hose w ords or
phrases ( including first language equivalent s) t hat t hey have predict ed correct ly.
They also writ e down new inf orm at ion t hey hear.

St ep 3 Pa ir pr oce ss- ba se d discussion

I n pairs, st udent s com pare what t hey have underst ood so far and explain how t hey
arriv e at t he underst anding. They ident ify t he part s t hat cause confusion and
disagreem ent and m ake a not e of t he part s of t he t ext t hat require special
at t ent ion in t he second list en.

St ep 4 Se cond list e n
St udent s list en t o t hose part s t hat have caused confusion or disagreem ent areas
and m ak e not es of any new inform at ion t hey hear.

St ep 5 W hole - cla ss pr oce ss- ba se d discussion

The t eacher leads a discussion t o confirm com prehension before discussing w it h
st udent s t he st rat egies t hat t hey report ed using.

List e n ing As Acqu isit ion

Our discussion so far has dealt wit h one perspect ive on list ening, nam ely list ening
as com prehension. Everyt hing we have discussed has been based on t he
assum pt ion t hat t he role of list ening in a language program is t o help develop
learners’ abilit ies t o underst and t hings t hey list en t o.
This approach t o t eaching of list ening has been based on t he following
assum pt ions:

• List ening serves t he goal of ext ract ing m eaning from m essages
• I n order t o do t his learners have t o be t aught how t o use bot h bot t om up
and t op down processes in arriving at an underst anding of m essages

12
 • The language of ut t erances, i.e. t he precise words, synt ax, expressions
used by speakers are t em porary carriers of m eaning. Once m eaning has
been ident ified t here is no furt her need t o at t end t o t he form of m essages
unless problem s in underst anding occurred.
• Teaching list ening st rat egies can help m ake learners m ore effect ive
list eners

Tasks em ployed in classroom m at erials seek t o enable list eners t o recognize and
act on t he general, specific or im plied m eaning of ut t erances, and t hese include
sequencing t asks, t rue- false com prehension t asks, pict ure ident ificat ion t asks,
sum m ary t asks, dict o com p as well as act ivit ies designed t o develop effect ive
list ening st rat egies. Alt hough what is som et im es called “ discrim inat ive
list ening” ( Wolvin and Coakely 1996) is som et im es em ployed ( i.e.list ening t o
dist inguish audit ory st im uli) , it is generally t aught as an init ial st age in t he
list ening process, t he ult im at e goal of which is com prehension. Act ivit ies t hat are
t ypically not em ployed when com prehension is t he focus of list ening are t hose
which require accurat e recognit ion and recall of words, synt ax and expressions
t hat occurred in t he input . Such act ivit ies would include dict at ion, cloze exercises,
ident ifying differences bet ween a spoken and writ t en t ext . Act ivit ies such as t hese
are discouraged because t hey focus on list ening for words rat her t han list ening
for m eaning, i.e. t hey give t oo m uch em phasis t o bot t om - up list ening processes
rat her t han t op down ones.

Few would quest ion t he approach t o t he t eaching of list ening described above
when t he focus is list ening as com prehension. But anot her crucial role has been
proposed for list ening in a language program , nam ely it s role in facilit at ing
second language acquisit ion. Schm idt ( 1990) has drawn at t ent ion t o t he role of
consciousness in language learning, and in part icular t o t he role of not icing in
learning. His argum ent is t hat we won’t learn anyt hing from input we hear and
underst and unless we not ice som et hing about t he input . Consciousness of
feat ures of t he input can serve as a t rigger which act ivat es t he first st age in t he
process of incorporat ing new linguist ic feat ures int o ones language com pet ence.
As Slobin ( 1985: 1164) rem arked of L1 learning:
The only linguist ic m at erials t hat can figure in language- m aking are
st ret ches of speech t hat at t ract t he child’s at t ent ion t o a sufficient degree
t o be not iced and held in m em ory.

Schm idt ( 1990,139) furt her clarifies t his point in dist inguishing bet ween input
( what t he learner hears) and int ake ( t hat part of t he input t hat t he learner

13
not ices) . Only int ake can serve as t he basis for language developm ent . I n his own
st udy of his acquisit ion of Port uguese ( Schm idt and Frot a 1986) , Schm idt found
t hat t here was a close connect ion bet ween not icing feat ures of t he input , and
t heir lat er em ergence in his own speech.

I n order for language developm ent t o t ake place, however, m ore appears t o be
required t hat sim ply not icing feat ures of t he input . The learner has t o t ry t o
incorporat e new linguist ic it em s int o his or her language repert oire. That is, t hey
need t o be used in oral product ion. This involves process t hat hav e been v ariously
referred t o as rest ruct uring, com plexificat ion and producing st ret ched out put . Van
Pat t en ( 1993, 436) suggest s t hat rest ruct uring refers t o
… t hose [ processes] t hat m ediat e t he incorporat ion of int ake int o t he
developing syst em . Since t he int ernalizat ion of int ake is not m ere
accum ulat ion of discret e bit s of dat a, dat e have t o “ fit in” in som e way and
som et im es t he accom m odat ion of a part icular set of dat a causes changes
in t he rest of t he syst em .

Com plexificat ion and st ret ching of out put occurs in cont ext s
…where t he learner needs t o produce out put which t he current
int erlanguage syst em cannot handle …[ and so] … pushes t he lim it s of t he
int erlanguage syst em t o handle t hat out put .
Tarone and Liu 1995, 120- 121

I n ot her words, learners need t o t ake part in act ivit ies which require t hem t o t ry
out and experim ent in using newly not iced language form s in order for new
learning it em s t o becom e incorporat ed int o t heir linguist ic repert oire.

What are t he im plicat ions of t his view of t he role of list ening in language learning,
t o t he t eaching of list ening? I would suggest t hat we can first ly dist inguish
bet ween sit uat ions where com prehension only is an appropriat e inst ruct ional goal
and t hose where com prehension plus acquisit ion is a relevant focus. Exam ples of
t he form er would be sit uat ions where list ening t o ext ract inform at ion is t he
prim ary focus of list ening, such as list ening t o lect ures, list ening t o
announcem ent s, list ening t o sales present at ions et c, and sit uat ions where
list ening serves prim arily a t ransact ional funct ion, such as service encount ers. I n
ot her cases, however, a list ening course m ay be part of a general English course
or linked t o a speaking course, and in t hese sit uat ions bot h list ening as
com prehension and list ening as acquisit ion should be t he focus. List ening t ext s
and m at erials can t hen be exploit ed, first as t he basis for com prehension, and
second as t he basis for acquisit ion. What classroom st rat egies are appropriat e in
t his case?

14
I would propose a t wo- part cycle of t eaching act ivit ies as t he basis for t he
list ening as acquisit ion phase of a lesson, nam ely:

a) not icing act ivit ies

b) rest ruct uring act ivit ies

Not icing act ivit ies involve ret urning t o t he list ening t ext s t hat served as t he basis
for com prehension act ivit ies and using t hem as t he basis for language awareness.
For exam ple st udent s can list en again t o a recording in order t o:
• ident ify differences bet ween what t hey hear and a print ed version of t he
t ext
• com plet e a cloze version of t he t ext
• com plet e sent ences st em s t aken from t he t ext
• check off from a list , expressions t hat occurred in t he t ext

Rest ruct uring act ivit ies are oral or writ t en t asks t hat involve product ive use of
select ed it em s from t he list ening t ext . Such act ivit ies could include:
• in t he case of conversat ional t ext s, pair reading of t he t ape script s
• writ t en sent ence- com plet ion t asks requiring use of expressions and ot her
linguist ic it em s t hat occurred in t he t ext s
• dialog pract ice based on dialogs t hat incorporat e it em s from t he t ex t
• role plays in which st udent s are required t o use key language from t he
t ext s

For exam ple here is t he list ening t ext from an act ivit y in I nt erchange Level 2, 3 rd
edit ion.
Mike has j ust ret urned from Brazil. List en t o him t alk about Carnav al.
What did he enj oy m ost about it ?

Mike: I sn’t t hat m usic fant ast ic? I t ’s from a sam ba CD t hat I got when I
was in Rio for Carnival. Wow! Carnival in Rio is really som et hing! I t ’s a
part y t hat last s for four whole days. I t ’s held lat e in February or early
March, but you need t o book a hot el room way in advance because hot els
fill up really quickly. Carnaval is celebrat ed all over Brazil, but t he m ost
fam ous part y is in Rio. The whole cit y is decorat ed wit h colored light s and
st ream ers. I t ’s really very beaut iful. Everyone is very friendly – especially
t o visit ors from ot her count ries. The best part about Carnav al is t he big
parade. The cost um es are unbelievable – people work on t hem for
m ont hs. I t ’s really fant ast ic t o wat ch. Everyone dances t he sam ba in t he
st reet s. I ’d really recom m end you go t o Rio for Carnaval if y ou ever hav e
t he chance.

15
The list ening act ivit ies t hat accom pany t his t ext focus on list ening for
com prehension and focus on underst anding det ails from t he passage. However
t he t ext could also be used as t he basis for a follow- up acquisit ion act ivit y . For
exam ple, st udent s could be given t he t ext above wit h som e key lexical and
gram m at ical it em s delet ed and t he passage used as a cloze list ening. Then t he
st udent s could be asked t o work in pairs and rewrit e t he m onolog as a quest ion
and answer exchange bet ween Mike and a friend. Once t his was done t he dialog
could be used for pair pract ice. I n t his way st udent s would have t he chance t o
acquire for act ive use, som e of t he vocabulary and gram m ar used in t he t ext .

I am hence advocat ing t hat in cont ext s where com prehension and acquisit ion are
t he goals of a list ening course, a t wo part st rat egy is appropriat e in classroom
t eaching and inst ruct ional m at erials, nam ely:

Ph a se 1 : list e n ing a s com pr e h e n sion

Use of t he m at erials as discussed above
Ph a se 2 : list e n ing a s a cqu isit ion
The list ening t ext s used are now used as t he basis for speaking act ivit ies,
m aking use of not icing act ivit ies and rest ruct uring act ivit ies.

By linking list ening t asks t o speaking t asks in t he way described above,

opport unit ies can be provided for st udent s t o not ice how language is used in
different com m unicat ive cont ext s, and t hen pract ice using som e of t he language
t hat occurred in t he list ening t ext s.

2 : Th e Te a ch in g of Spe a k in g

The m ast ery of speaking skills in English is a priorit y for m any second or foreign
language learners. Learners consequent ly oft en evaluat e t heir success in
language learning as well as t he effect iveness of t heir English course on t he basis
of how well t hey feel t hey have im proved in t heir spoken language proficiency.
Oral skills have hardly been neglect ed in EFL/ ESL courses ( wit ness t he huge
num ber of conversat ion and ot her speaking course books in t he m arket ) t hough
how best t o approach t he t eaching of oral skills has long been t he focus of
m et hodological debat e. Teachers and t ext books m ake use of a v ariet y of
approaches, ranging from direct approaches focusing on specific feat ures of oral
int eract ion ( e.g. t urn- t aking, t opic m anagem ent , quest ioning st rat egies ) t o

16
indirect approaches which creat e condit ions for oral int eract ion t hrough group
work, t ask work and ot her st rat egies ( Richards 1990) .

Advances in discourse analysis, conversat ional analysis, and corpus analysis in

recent years have revealed a great deal about t he nat ure of spoken discourse and
how it differs from writ t en discourse ( McCart hy and Cart er 1997) . These
differences reflect t he different purposes for which spoken and writ t en language
are used. Jones ( 1996,12) com m ent s:
I n speaking and list ening we t end t o be get t ing som et hing done, exploring
ideas, working out som e aspect of t he world, or sim ply being t oget her. I n
writ ing we m ay be creat ing a record, com m it t ing event s or m om ent s t o
paper.

Research has also t hrown considerable light on t he com plexit y of spok en

int eract ion in eit her a first or second language. Luom a ( 2004) for ex am ple, cit es
som e of t he following feat ures of spoken discourse:
•
•
Com posed of idea unit s ( conj oined short phrases and clauses)

•
May be planned ( e.g. a lect ure) or unplanned ( e.g. a conversat ion)

•
Em ploys m ore vague or generic words t han writ t en language

•
Em ploys fixed phrases, fillers and hesit at ion m arkers

•
Cont ains slips and errors reflect ing on- line processing

•
I nvolved reciprocit y ( i.e. int eract ions are j oint ly const ruct ed)
Shows variat ion ( e.g. bet ween form al and casual speech) , reflect ing
speaker roles, speaking purpose, and t he cont ext

Som e of t hese feat ures were discussed in t he sect ion on list ening above.

Con ve r sa t ion a l r ou t in e s

A m arked feat ure of conversat ional discourse is t he use of fixed ex pressions or

“ rout ines” , which oft en have specific funct ions in conversat ion and which give
conversat ional discourse t he qualit y of nat uralness. Wardhaugh ( 1985: 74 cit ed in
Richards 1990) observes:

There are rout ines t o help people est ablish t hem selves in cert ain posit ions:
rout ines for t aking off and hanging up coat s; arrangem ent s concerning
where one is t o sit or st and at a part y or in a m eet ing,; offers of hospit alit y ,
and so on. There are rout ines for beginnings and endings of conv ersat ions,
for leading int o t opics, and for m oving away from one t opic t anot her. And
t here are rout ines for breaking up conversat ions, for leaving a part y , and
for dissolving a gat hering … I t is difficult t o im agine how life could be lived
wit hout som e rout ines.

Consider t he following rout ines. Where m ight t hey occur? What m ight t here
funct ion be wit hin t hose sit uat ions?

This one’s on m e.
I don’t believe a word of it .

17
 I don’t get t he point .
You look great t oday.
As I was saying ..
Nearly t im e. Got everyt hing.
I ’ll be m aking am ove t hen,
I see what you m ean.
Let m e t hink about it .
Just looking t hanks.
I ’ll be wit h you in a m inut e.
I t doesn’t m at t er.

Pawley and Syder ( 1983) suggest t hat nat ive speakers have a repert oire of
t housands of rout ines like t hese, and t heir use in appropriat e sit uat ions creat es
conversat ional discourse t hat sounds nat ural and nat ive- like, and t hat t hey have
t o be learned and used as fixed expressions.

I n designing speaking act ivit ies or inst ruct ional m at erials for second or foreign
language t eaching it is also necessary t o recognize t he very different funct ions
speaking perform s in daily com m unicat ion and t he different purposes for which
our st udent s need speaking skills.

St y le s of spe a k in g
An im port ant dim ension of conversat ion is using a st yle of speaking t hat is
appropriat e t o t he part icular circum st ances. Different st yles of speaking reflect
t he roles, age, sex, and st at us of part icipant s in int eract ions and reflect t he
expression of polit eness. Consider t he various ways in which it is possible t o ask
som eone t he t im e, and t he different social m eanings t hat are com m unicat ed by
t hese differences.
Got t he t im e?
I guess it m ust be quit e lat e now?
What ’s t he t im e?
Do you have t he t im e?
Can I bot her you for t he t im e?
You wouldn’t have t he t im e would you?

Lexical, phonological, and gram m at ical changes m ay be involved in producing a

suit able st yle of speaking, as t he following alt ernat ives illust rat e;

Have you seen t he boss? Have you seen t he m anager? ( lexical)

Whachadoin? / What are you doing? ( phonological)
Seen Joe lat ely?/ Have you seen Joe lat ely?

Different speech st yles reflect percept ions of t he social roles of t he part icipant s
in a speech event . I f t he speaker and hearer are j udged t o of m ore or less qual
st at us, a casual speech st yle is appropriat e t hat st resses affiliat ion and solidarit y .

18
I f t he part icipant s are perceived as being of uneven power or st at us, a m ore
form al speech st yle is appropriat e, one t hat m arks t he dom inance of one speaker
over t he ot her. Successful m anagem ent of speech st yles creat es t he sense of
polit eness t hat is essent ial for harm onious social relat ions ( Brown and Levinson,
1978) .

Fu n ct ion s of spe a k in g
Num erous at t em pt s have been m ade t o classify t he funct ions of speaking in
hum an int eract ion. Brown and Yule ( 1983) m ade a useful dist inct ion bet ween t he
int eract ional funct ions of speaking ( in which it serves t o est ablish and m aint ain
social relat ions) , and t he t ransact ional funct ions ( which focus on t he exchange of
inform at ion) . I n workshops wit h t eachers and in designing m y own m at erials I
use an expanded t hree part version of Brown and Yule’s fram ework ( aft er Jones
1996 and Burns 1998) : t alk as int eract ion: t alk as t ransact ion: t alk as
perform ance. Each of t hese speech act ivit ies are quit e dist inct in t erm s of form
and funct ion and require different t eaching approaches.

Ta lk a s in t e r a ct ion
This refers t o what we norm ally m ean by “ conversat ion” and describes int eract ion
which serves a prim arily social funct ion. When people m eet , t hey exchange
greet ings, engage in sm all t alk and chit chat , recount recent experiences and so
on because t hey wish t o be friendly and t o est ablish a com fort able zone of
int eract ion wit h ot hers. The focus is m ore on t he speakers and how t hey wish t o
present t hem selves t o each ot her t han on t he m essage. Such exchanges m ay be
eit her casual or m ore form al depending on t he circum st ances and t heir nat ure
has been well described by Brown and Yule ( 1983) . The m ain feat ures of t alk as
int eract ion can be sum m arized as follows:
•
•
Has a prim arily social funct ion

•
Reflect s role relat ionships

•
Reflect s speaker’s ident it y

•
May be form al or casual

•
Uses conversat ional convent ions

•
Reflect s degrees of polit eness

•
Em ploys m any generic words

•
Uses conversat ional regist er
I s j oint ly const ruct ed

We can see som e of t hese feat ures illust rat ed in t he following aut hent ic exam ple
of a segm ent of conversat ional discourse ( from Thornbury and Slade 2007, 132-
133) . Two wom en are asking a t hird wom an about her husband and how t hey
first m et .

19
 Jessie: Right . Right ., and so when did you – act ually m eet him ?
Brenda: So we didn’t act ually m eet unt il t hat night .
Judy: Oh, hyst erical. [ Laughs]
Brenda: Well, I m et him t hat night . We were all, we all went out t o dinner. So
I had cham pagne and st rawberries at t he airport .
Jessie: And what was it like t he when you first saw him ? Were y ou really - - - -
nervous?
Brenda: - - - Well, I was hanging out of a window wat ching him in his card,
and I t hought ‘oh God what about t his! ’ [ laughs]
Brenda: And he’d com bed his hair and shaved his eyebrows – and –
Jessie: had you seen a phot o of him ?
Brenda: Oh, yeah, I had phot os of him , phot os … and I ’d spok en t o him on
t he phone.
Jessie: Did you get on well st raight away?
Brenda: Uh, well sort of. I ’m a sort of nervy person when I first m eet people,
so t i was sort of … you know… j ust nice t o him .
Jessie: - - - [ laughs]

The conversat ion is highly int eract ive and is in a collaborat ive conversat ional
st yle. The list eners give const ant feedback including laught er, t o prom pt t he
speaker t o cont inue, and we see t he exam ples of casual conversat ional regist er
wit h “ nervy” and “ hanging out of t he window” .

Exam ples of t hese kinds of t alk are:

Chat t ing t o an adj acent passenger during a plane flight ( polit e conversat ion t hat
does not seek t o develop t he basis for fut ure social cont act )
Chat t ing t o a school friend over coffee ( casual conversat ion t hat serves t o m ark
an ongoing friendship)
A st udent chat t ing t o his or her professor while wait ing for an elevat or ( polit e
conversat ion t hat reflect s unequal power bet ween t he t wo part icipant s)
Telling a friend about an am using weekend experience, and hearing her or him
recount a sim ilar experience he or she once had ( sharing personal recount s)

Som e of t he skills involved in using t alk as int eract ion involve knowing how t o do
t he following t hings:

•
•
Opening and closing conversat ions

•
Choosing t opics

•
Making sm all- t alk

•
Joking

•
Recount ing personal incident s and experiences

•
Turn- t aking

•
Using adj acency- pairs

•
I nt errupt ing

•
React ing t o ot hers
Using an appropriat e st yle of speaking

Mast ering t he art of t alk as int eract ion is difficult and m ay not be a priorit y for all
learners. However st udent s who do need such skills and find t hem lacking report

20
t hat t hey som et im es feel awkward and at a loss for words when t hey find
t hem selves in sit uat ion t hat requires t alk for int eract ion. They feel difficult y in
present ing a good im age of t hem selves and som et im es avoid sit uat ions which call
for t his kind of t alk. This can be a disadvant age for som e learners where t he
abilit y t o use t alk for conversat ion can be im port ant . Hat ch ( 1978) em phasizes
t hat second language learners need a wide range of t opics at t heir disposal in
order t o m anage t alk as int eract ion. I nit ially, learners m ay depend on fam iliar
t opics t o get by. However t hey also need pract ice in int roducing new t opics int o
conversat ion t o m ove beyond t his st age.

They should pract ice nom inat ing t opics about which t hey are prepared t o
speak. They should do lot s of list ening com prehension for t opic nom inat ions
of nat ive speakers. They should pract ice predict ing quest ions for a large
num ber of t opics … They should be t aught elicit at ion devices... t o get t opic
clarificat ion. That is, t hey should pract ice saying “ huh” , “ pardon m e” , “ excuse
m e, I didn’t underst and” et c and echoing part s of sent ences t hey do not
underst and in order t o get it recycled again. Not hing st ops t he opport unit y t o
carry on a conversat ion quicker t han silence or t he use of “ yes” and head
nodding when t he learner does not underst and.
Hat ch 1978: 434

Ta lk a s t r a n sa ct ion
This t ype of t alk refers t o sit uat ions where t he focus is on what is said or done.
The m essage is t he cent ral focus here and m aking oneself underst ood clearly and
accurat ely, rat her t han t he part icipant s and how t hey int eract socially wit h each
ot her. I n t ransact ions,
…. t alk is associat ed wit h ot her act ivit ies. For exam ple, st udent s m ay be
engaged in hand- on act ivit ies [ e.g. in a science lesson] t o explore concept s
associat ed wit h float ing and sinking. I n t his t ype of spoken language
st udent s and t eachers usually focus on m eaning or on t alking t heir way t o
underst anding.
Jones 1996, 14

The following exam ple from a lit erat ure lesson illust rat es t his kind of t alk in a
classroom set t ing: [ T = Teacher S = St udent ]

T: The ot her day we were t alking about figures of speech. And we have already in
t he past t alked about t hree kinds of figures of speech. Does anybody rem em ber
t hose t hree t ypes? Mary?
S: Personificat ion, sim ile, and m et aphor.
T: Good. Let m e writ e t hose on t he board. __ Now can anybody t ell m e what
personificat ion is all about again? Juan?
S: Making a non- living t hing act like a person.
T: Yes. OK. Good enough. Now what about sim ile? …. OK. – Cecelia?
S: Com paring t wo t hings by m aking use of t he words “ like” or “ as” .
T: OK. Good. I ’ll writ e t hat on t he board. The ot her one – m et aphor. Paul?
S: I t ’s when we m ake a com parison bet ween t wo t hings, but we com pare t hem
wit hout using t he words “ like” or “ as” .

21
T: All right . Good. So it ’s m ore direct t han sim ile. Now we had a poem a few
weeks ago about personificat ion. Do you rem em ber? Can you recall one line from
t hat poem where a non- living t hings act s like a hum an person?
S: “ The m oon walks t he night ” .
T: Good. “ The m oon walks he night .” Does t he m oon have feet t o walk?
S: No.
T: No. So t his is a figure of speech. All right . Now our lesson t oday has som et hing
t o do wit h m et aphor. Now we’re going t o see what t hey have in com m on …
[ Richards and Lockhart 1994. 116- 117]

Exam ples of t hese kinds of t alk are:

Classroom group discussions and problem solving act ivit ies.

A class act ivit y during which st udent s design a post er.
Discussing needed repairs t o a com put er wit h a t echnician
Discussing sight seeing plans wit h a hot el clerk or t our guide
Making a t elephone call t o obt ain flight inform at ion .
Asking som eone for direct ions on t he st reet .
Buying som et hing in a shop
Ordering food from a m enu in a rest aurant .

Burns dist inguishes bet ween t wo different t ypes of t alk as t ransact ion. One is
sit uat ions where t he focus is on giving and receiving inform at ion and where t he
part icipant s focus prim arily on what is said or achieved ( e.g. asking som eone for
direct ions) . Accuracy m ay not be a priorit y as long as inform at ion is successfully
com m unicat ed or underst ood.

The second t ype are t ransact ions which focus on obt aining goods or serv ices,
such as checking int o a hot el or ordering food in a rest aurant . For ex am ple t he
following exchange was observed in a café:

Wait person: Hi, what ” ll it be t oday?

Client : Just a cappuccino please. Low fat decaf if you have it .
Wait person: Sure. Not hing t o eat t oday?
Client : No t hanks.
Wait person: Not a problem .
( Aut hor’s dat a)

The m ain feat ures of t alk as t ransact ion are:

•
•
I t has a prim arily inform at ion focus

•
The m ain focus is t he m essage and not t he part icipant s
Part icipant s em ploy com m unicat ion st rat egies t o m ake t hem selves

•
underst ood
There m ay be frequent quest ions, repet it ions, and com prehension checks
as in t he exam ple from t he classroom lesson above

22
 •
•
There m ay be negot iat ion and digression
Linguist ic accuracy is not always im port ant

Som e of t he skills involved in using t alk for t ransact ions are:

•
•
Explaining a need or int ent ion

•
Describing som et hing

•
Asking quest ioning

•
Asking for clarificat ion

•
Confirm ing inform at ion

•
Just ifying an opinion

•
Making suggest ions

•
Clarifying underst anding

•
Making com parisons
Agreeing and disagreeing

Ta lk a s pe r for m a n ce

The t hird t ype of t alk which can usefully be dist inguished has been called t alk as
perform ance. This refers t o public t alk, t hat is, t alk which t ransm it s inform at ion
before an audience such as m orning t alks, public announcem ent s, and speeches.
For exam ple here is t he opening of a fall welcom e speech given by a univ ersit y
president :

Good m orning. I t ’s not m y int ent ion t o deliver t he cust om ary st at e of t he

universit y address. There’s good reason for t hat . I t would seem t o m e t o be
presum pt uous for som eone who has been here not quit e sev en week s t o t ell
you what he t hinks t he st at e of t he universit y is. You would all be bet t er
prepared for t hat kind of address t han I am . However, I would like t o offer
you, based on m y experience – which has been pret t y int ensive t hese alm ost
sev en weeks – som e im pressions t hat I have of t his inst it ut ion, st rengt hs, or
som e of t hem , and t he challenges and opport unit ies t hat we face here. … I
also want t o t alk about how I see m y role during t he short t im e t hat I will be
wit h you …
www.sj su.edu/ president / docs/ speeches/ 2003_welcom e.pdf accessed June 9 2007

Spoken t ext s of t his kind according t o Jones ( 1996,14) ,

…oft en have ident ifiable generic st ruct ures and t he language used is m ore
predict able. … Because of less cont ext ual support , t he speaker m ust
include all necessary inform at ion in t he t ext – hence t he im port ance of t opic
as well as t ext ual knowledge. And while m eaning is st ill im port ant , t here will
be m ore em phasis on form and accuracy.

Talk as perform ance t ends t o be in t he form of m onolog rat her t han dialog, oft en
follows a recognizable form at ( e.g. a speech of welcom e) and is closer t o writ t en

23
language t han conversat ional language. Sim ilarly it is oft en evaluat ed according
t o it s effect iveness or im pact on t he list ener, som et hing which is unlikely t o
happen wit h t alk as int eract ion or t ransact ion. Exam ples of t alk as perform ance
are:

Giving a class report about a school t rip

Conduct ing a class debat e
Giving a speech of welcom e
Making a sales present at ion
Giving a lect ure

The m ain feat ures of t alk as perform ance are:

•
•
There is a focus on bot h m essage and audience

•
I t reflect s predict able organizat ion and sequencing

•
Form and accuracy is im port ant

•
Language is m ore like writ t en language
I t is oft en m onologic

Som e of t he skills involved in using t alk as perform ance are:

•
•
Using an appropriat e form at

•
Present ing inform at ion in an appropriat e sequence

•
Maint aining audience engagem ent

•
Using correct pronunciat ion and gram m ar

•
Creat ing an effect on t he audience

•
Using appropriat e vocabulary
Using appropriat e opening and closing

Teachers som et im es describe int erest ing differences bet ween how learners
m anage t hese t hree different kinds of t alk, as t he following anecdot es illust rat e.

I som et im es find wit h m y st udent s at a universit y in Hong Kong, t hat t hey are
good at t alk as t ransact ion and perform ance but not wit h t alk as int eract ion. For
exam ple t he ot her day one of m y st udent s did an excellent class present at ion in a
course for com put er science m aj ors, and described very effect ively a new piece of
com put er soft ware. However a few days lat er when I m et t he sam e st udent going
hom e on t he subway and t ried t o engage her in social chat , she was at a
com plet e loss for words.

Anot her t eacher describes a second language user wit h j ust t he opposit e
difficult ies. He is m ore com fort able wit h t alk as int eract ion t han as perform ance.

One of m y colleagues in m y universit y in China is quit e com fort able using t alk
socially. I f we have lunch t oget her wit h ot her nat ive speakers he is quit e
com fort able j oking and chat t ing in English. However recent ly we did a
present at ion t oget her at a conference and his perform ance was very different . His
pronunciat ion becam e m uch m ore “ Chinese” and he m ade quit e a few
gram m at ical and ot her errors t hat I hadn’t heard him m ake before.

24
I m plica t ion s for t e a ch in g

Three core issues need t o be addressed in planning speaking act ivit ies for an oral
English course. The first is t o det erm ine what kinds of speaking skills t he course
will focus on. I s it all t hree of t he genres described above or will som e receiv e
great er at t ent ion t han ot hers. I nform al needs analysis is t he st art ing point here.
Procedures for det erm ining needs include observat ion of learners carrying out
different kinds of com m unicat ive t asks, quest ionnaires, int erviews, and diagnost ic
t est ing ( e.g. Tsang and Wong 2002) . The second issues is ident ifying t eaching
st rat egies t o “ t each” ( i.e. provide opport unit ies for learners t o acquire) each kind
of t alk.

Te a ch in g t a lk a s in t e r a ct ion
Talk as int eract ion is perhaps t he m ost difficult skill t o t each since int eract ional
t alk is a very com plex as well as subt le phenom ena t hat t akes place under t he
cont rol of “ unspoken” rules. I n m y experience t hese are best t aught t hought
providing exam ples em bedded in nat uralist ic dialogs t hat can serve t o m odel
feat ures such as opening and closing conversat ions, m aking sm all t alk,
recount ing personal incident s and experiences, and react ing t o what ot hers say.
The rules for m aking “ sm all t alk” are t hat such int eract ions are oft en init iat ed by
a com m ent concerning som et hing in t he im m ediat e vicinit y or t hat bot h
part icipant s have knowledge of, and t hat t he com m ent will elicit agreem ent , since
agreem ent is face- preserving and non- t hreat ening. Hence safe t opics m ust be
chosen such as t he weat her, t he t raffic and so on. St udent s can init ially be given
m odels t o pract ice, such as t he following:

A. Nice weat her t oday.

B. Yes it is.

A. I hope t he weat her is nice for t he weekend.

B. Me t oo.

A. The buses t o school are always so crowded.

B. Yes t hey are.

Lat er t hey can be given sit uat ions t o consider in which sm all t alk m ight be
appropriat e ( e.g. m eet ing som eone at a m ovie, running int o a friend in t he
cafet eria, wait ing at a bus st op) and asked t o t hink of sm all t opic com m ent and
responses.

25
Giving feedback ( back channelling) is anot her im port ant aspect of t alk as
int eract ion and involves responding t o a conversat ional part ner wit h ex pressions
such as That ’s int erest ing” , “ yeah” , “ really” , and so on, t hat indicat e int erest and
a wish for t he speaker t o cont inue. To pract ice using back channelling in t his way
st udent s can exam ine dialogs in which feedback expressions have been om it t ed.
They can consider suit able ways of providing t hem , t hen pract ice t hem . For
exam ple t hey can consider different responses t hey could use on t he following
dialog:

A. I ’m going t o Hawaii for m y next vacat ion,

B. _______
A. Yeah, m y parent s are t aking m e t here as a graduat ion present .
B. ___________ And what do you plan t o do t here?
A. Well I guess I ’ll spend a lot of t im e on t he beach.
B. _________
A. But I also want t o do som e snorkelling.
B. ________

Anot her t echnique t o pract ice t he use of conversat ion st art ers and personal
recount s involves giving conversat ion st art ers which st udent s have t o respond t o
by asking one or t wo follow- up quest ions. The t eacher prepares a handout
cont aining a list of conversat ional st art ers ( t he expressions one uses t o st art a
conversat ion or t o int roduce a t opic int o a conversat ion such as, “ I didn’t sleep
very well last night ” . “ Look what I bought on Sunday. How do y ou lik e it ?” “ Did
t hat t hunderst orm last night wake you?” ) St udent s m ove around t he class. One
st udent s read out a st art er from t he list , and his or her part ner responds by
giving feedback or asking follow- up quest ions t o keep t he conversat ion going.

Two sim ple act ivit ies I use t o pract ice t opic m anagem ent are “ in t he hot seat ” ,
and “ quest ion t im e” . I n t he first act ivit y, a st udent sit s on a chair in front of t he
class and m akes a st at em ent about som et hing he or she did recent ly ( e.g. “ I saw
a good m ovie on Sunday) . The ot her m em bers of t he class have t o ask t hree or
m ore quest ions about t he t opic which t he st udent has t o answer quickly. Then
anot her st udent s t akes t he hot seat . Wit h t he act ivit y called quest ion t im e, before
st udent s begin a lesson on a new t hem e, I prepare up t o 15 quest ions relat ed t o
t he t hem e and put t hem on a handout . For exam ple if t he next unit is on t he
t hem e of sport s, on t he st udent s’ handout t here will be quest ions such as “ What

26
sport s do you play” , “ How oft en do you play sport s?” , “ What sport s are popular in
your count ry?” , “ What sport have you never t ried?” et c. I first ask st udent s
around t he class t o answer t he quest ions quickly. Then st udent s pract ice asking
and answering t he quest ions in pairs.

Te a ch in g t a lk s a s t r a n sa ct ion
Talk as t ransact ion is m ore easily planned since current com m unicat ive m at erials
are a rich resource of group act ivit ies, inform at ion- gap act ivit ies and role plays
t hat can provide a source for pract icing how t o use t alk for sharing and obt aining
inform at ion as well as for carrying out real- world t ransact ions. These act ivit ies
include ranking act ivit ies, values clarificat ion act ivit ies, brainst orm ing, and
sim ulat ions. Group discussion act ivit ies can be init iat ed by having st udent s work
in groups t o prepare a short list of cont roversial st at em ent s for ot hers t o t hink
about . Groups exchange st at em ent s and discuss t hem . For exam ple: “ Schools
should do away wit h exam s” . “ Veget arianism is t he only healt hy life st yle” . “ The
Olym pic gam es are a wast e of m oney.” Role- play act ivit ies are anot her fam iliar
t echnique for pract icing real world t ransact ions and t ypically involve t he following
sequence of act ivit ies:
• Preparing: reviewing vocabulary, real world knowledge relat ed t o t he
cont ent and cont ext of t he role play ( e.g. ret urning a fault y it em t o a

•
st ore)
Modeling and elicit ing: dem onst rat ing t he st ages t hat are t ypically
involved in t he t ransact ion, elicit ing suggest ions for how each st age can be

•
carried out , and t eaching t he funct ional language need for each st age
Pract icing and reviewing: st udent s are assigned roles and pract ice a role
play using cue cards or realia t o provide language and ot her support

However an issue t hat arises in relat ion t o pract icing t alk as t ransact ion using
different kinds of com m unicat ive t asks, is t he level of linguist ic accuracy t hat
st udent s achieve when carrying out t hese t asks. One assum pt ion is t hat form will
largely look aft er it self wit h incident al support from t he t eacher. From t his
perspect ive gram m ar has a m ediat ing role, rat her t han serving as an end in it self
( Thornbury 1998,112) . I t is a resource t hat t he learner calls upon t o m ake
m eaning but t he focus is on t ask accom plishm ent rat her t han gram m at ical
pract ice. “ The t eacher and t he learner have a rem arkable degree of flexibilit y, for
t hey are present ed wit h a set of general learning obj ect ives and problem - solving
t asks” ( Kum aravadivelu 1991,99) . As st udent s carry out com m unicat ive t asks,
t he assum pt ion is t hat t hey engage in t he process of negot iat ion of m eaning,
em ploying st rat egies such as com prehension checks, confirm at ion checks, and
clarificat ion request s. These are believed t o lead t o a gradual m odificat ion of t heir
language out put , which over t im e t akes on m ore and m ore t arget - lik e form s.

27
Despit e t hese opt im ist ic claim s ot hers have report ed t hat com m unicat ion t asks
oft en develop fluency at t he expense of accuracy. Higgs and Clifford ( 1982,78) ,
for exam ple, report ing experience wit h foreign language t eaching program s in t he
US, observed:
I n program s t hat have as curricular goals an early em phasis on
unst ruct ured com m unicat ion act ivit ies – m inim ising, or excluding ent irely,
considerat ions of gram m at ical accuracy – it is possible in a fairly short t im e
.. t o provide st udent s wit h a relat ively large vocabulary and a high degree
of fluency .. These sam e dat a suggest t hat t he prem at ure im m ersion of a
st udent int o an unst ruct ured or “ free” conversat ional set t ing before cert ain
linguist ic st ruct ures are m ore or less in place is not done wit hout cost .
There appear t o be a real danger of leading st udent s t oo rapidly int o t he
creat ive aspect s of language use, in t hat if successful com m unicat ion is
encouraged and rewarded for it s own sake, t he effect seem s t o be one of
rewarding at t he sam e t im e t he incorrect st rat egies seized upon in
at t em pt ing t o deal wit h t he com m unicat ion st rat egies present ed.

Sim ilar findings have been report ed in m ore recent st udies of t ask- work ( e.g. see
Fost er 1998, Musum eci 1996) .

An exam ple of t he qualit y of language t hat is som et im es produces as st udent s

pract ice t ransact ional funct ions of language is seen in t he following exam ple,
observed during a role play t ask in a Spanish secondary school English lesson.
One st udent is playing t he role of a doct or and t he ot her a pat ient , and t hey are
discussing a healt h problem .
S 1: You how old?
S2: I ’m t hirt y- four .. t hirt y five.
S 1: Thirt y … five?
S 2: Fiv e.
S 1: Problem ?
S 2: I have … a pain in m y t hroat .
S 1: [ I n Spanish, What do you have?]
S 2: A pain.
S 1: [ I n Spanish. What ’s t hat ?]
S 2: [ I n Spanish: A pain] A pain.
S 1. Ah, [ ain.
S 2 : Yes, and it m akes problem t o m e when I … swallow.
S 1: When do you have …?
S 1: Since yest erday m orning.
S 1: [ I n Spanish. No, I m ean, where do you have t he pain?] I t has a pain in ….?
S 2. I n m y t hroat .
S 1: Ah. Let it .. get t ing, er .. worse. I t can be, er … very serious problem and
you are, you will go t o New York t o operat e, so … operat ion .. t he 7t h, t he 27 t h ,
er May . And t reat m ent , you can’t eat , er, big m eal.
S 2: Big m eal. I er … I don’t know? Fish?
S 1: Fiish, you have t o eat , er, fish, for exam ple.

28
This exam ple shows how low- level st udent s when carrying out com m unicat ion
t asks, oft en rely on a lexicalised syst em of com m unicat ion t hat is heavily
dependent upon on vocabulary and m em orized chunks of language as well as
bot h verbal and non- verbal com m unicat ion st rat egies t o get m eaning across.
Several ways can be used t o address t he issue of language accuracy when
st udent s are pract icing t ransact ional use of language:
1. By pre- t eaching cert ain linguist ic form s t hat can be used while com plet ing a
t ask
2. By reducing t he com plexit y of t he t ask, e.g. by fam iliarizing st udent s wit h t he
dem ands of t he act ivit y by showing t hem a sim ilar act ivit y on video or as a
dialog
3. By giving t im e t o plan t he t ask
4. By repeat ed perform ance of t he t ask

Willis [ 1966] suggest s using a cy cle of act ivit ies wit h t ask- work using a sequence
of act ivit ies in a lesson. These creat e int eract ion m ediat ed by a t ask and t hen
build language awareness and language developm ent around t ask perform ance.
She proposes t he following sequence of act ivit ies:

Pre t a sk a ct ivit ie s
I nt roduct ion t o t opic and t ask
o T helps Ss t o under st and t he t hem e and obj ect ives of t he t ask, for ex am ple,
brainst orm ing ideas w it h t he class, using pict ures, m im e or personal ex perience t o
int roduce t he t opic.
o Ss m ay do a pre- t ask , for ex am ple, t opic- based odd- w ord- out gam es. T m ay
highlight useful words and phrases, but w ould not pre- t each new st r uct ures.
o Ss can be giv en preparat ion t im e t o t hink about how t o do t he t ask.
o Ss can hear a recording of a parallel t ask being done ( so long as t his does not give
aw ay t he solut ion t o t he problem ) .
o I f t he t ask is based on a t ex t , Ss read a part of it .

The t a sk cycle
Task
o The t ask is done by Ss ( in pairs or groups) and giv es Ss a chance t o use w hat ev er
language t hey already hav e t o express t hem selves and say what ever t hey want t o
say. This m ay be in response t o reading a t ext or hearing a recording.
o T walks round and m onit or s, encouraging in a support ive way everyone’s at t em pt
at com m unicat ion in t he t arget language.
o T helps Ss t o form ulat e w hat t hey w ant t o say, but will not int ervene t o correct
errors of form .
o The em phasis is on spont aneous, ex plorat or y t alk and confidence building, w it hin
t he priv acy of t he sm all group.
o Success in achiev ing t he goals of t he t asks help Ss’ m ot ivat ion.

Planning
o Planning prepares for t he next st age where Ss are asked t o report briefly t o t he
w hole class how t hey did t he t ask and what t he out com e was.
o Ss draft and rehearse what t hey w ant t o say or writ e.

29
 o T goes round t o advise st udent s on language, suggest ing phrases and helping Ss
t o polish and correct t heir language.
o I f t he report s are in writ ing, T can encourage peer edit ing and use of dict ionaries.
o The em phasis is on clar it y , organizat ion, and accuracy, as appr opriat e for a public
present at ion.
o I ndiv idual st udent s oft en t ak e t his chance t o ask quest ions about specific language
it em s.

Report

o T ask s som e pairs t o report br iefly t o t he whole class so everyone can com pare
findings, or begin a survey. ( N.B: There m ust be a purpose for ot hers t o list en) .
Som et im es only one or t w o groups report in full; ot hers com m ent and add ext ra
point s. The class m ay t ake not es.
o T chairs, com m ent s on t he cont ent of t heir r eport s, rephrases per haps, but giv es
no ov ert public correct ion.

Th e la n gu a ge focu s

Analysis
o T set s som e language- focussed t asks, based on t he t ext s st udent read or on t he
t ranscript s of t hey recordings t hey heard. Ex am ples include t he follow ing.
Find w ords and phrases relat ed t op t he t opic or t ext .
Read t he t ranscr ipt , find w ords ending in “ s” and say w hat t he s m eans.
Find all t he w ords in t he sim ple past form . Say which refer t o past t im e and w hich
do not .
Underline and classify t he quest ions in t he t ranscript .

o T st art s Ss off, t hen st udent s cont inue, oft en in pair s.

o T goes round t o help; Ss can ask indiv idual quest ions.
o I n plenary , t hen rev iew s t he analy sis, possibly writ ing relev ant language up on t he
board in list form : Ss m ay m ake not es.

Pract ice
o T conduct s pract ice act ivit ies as needed, based on t he language analysis work
already on t he board, or using exam ples from t he t ext or t ranscript .
Pract ice act iv it ies can include:
Choral repet it ion of t he phrases ident ified and classified
Mem ory challenge gam es based on part ially erased exam ples or using
list s already on black board for pr ogressive delet ion
Sent ence com plet ion ( set by one t eam for anot her)
Mat ching t he past - t ense verbs ( j um bled) w it h t he subj ect or obj ect s
t hey had in t he t ex t
Dict ionary reference wit h words from t ext or t ranscript

Te a ch in g t a lk a s pe r for m a n ce
Teaching t alk as perform ance requires a different t eaching st rat egy. Jones ( 1996,
17) com m ent s:
I nit ially t alk as perform ance needs t o be prepared for and scaffolded in
m uch t he sam e way as writ t en t ext , and m any of t he t eaching st rat egies
used t o m ake underst andings of writ t en t ext accessible can be applied t o
t he form al uses of spoken language

This involves providing exam ples or m odels of speeches, oral present at ions,
st ories et c t hrough video or audio recordings or writ t en exam ples. These are t hen
analyzed or “ deconst ruct ed” in order t o underst and how such t ex t s work and

30
what t heir linguist ic and ot her organizat ional feat ures are. Quest ions such as t he
following guide t his process:
•
•
What is t he speaker’s purpose?

•
Who is t he audience?

•
What kind of inform at ion do t he audience expect ?
How does t he t alk begin, develop, and end? What m oves or st ages

•
are involved?
I s any special language used?

St udent s t hen work j oint ly on planning t heir own t ext s, which are t hen present ed
t o t he class.

Feez and Joyce’s approach t o t ext - based inst ruct ion provides a good m odel of
how t alk as perform ance can be t aught ( 1998,v) . This approach involves:
• Teaching explicit ly about t he st ruct ures and gram m at ical feat ures of
spoken and writ t en t ext s
• Linking spoken and writ t en t ext s t o t he cult ural cont ext of t heir use
• Designing unit s of work which focus on developing skills in relat ion t o
whole t ext s
• Providing st udent s wit h guided pract ice as t hey develop language skills for
m eaningful com m unicat ion t hrough whole t ext s.
Feez and Joyce ( 1998, 28- 31) give t he following descript ion of how a t ex t - based
lesson proceeds.

Phase1. Building t he cont ex t

I n t his st age st udent s:
• Are int roduced t o t he social cont ext of an aut hent ic m odel of t he t ex t - t ype being

•
st udied
Ex plore feat ures of t he general cult ural cont ext in which t he t ex t - t ype is used and

•
t he social purposes t he t ext - t ype achieves
Ex plore t he im m ediat e cont ext of sit uat ion by invest igat ing t he regist er of a m odel
t ex t w hich has been select ed on t he basis of t he cour se obj ect iv es and learner

•
need
An explorat ion of regist er involves:
Building know ledge of t he t opic of t he m odel t ext and knowledge of t he social
act iv it y in w hich t he t ex t is used, e.g. such as j ob seek ing
Underst anding t he roles and relat ionships of t he people using t he t ext and how
t hese are est ablished and m aint ained, e.g. t he relat ionship bet w een a j ob seek er
and a prospect ive em ploy er
Underst anding t he channel of com m unicat ion being used. e.g. using t he
t elephone, speaking face- t o- face wit h m em bers of an int erview panel

Cont ext building act iv it ies include:

• Present ing t he cont ex t t hrough pict ures, audiovisual m at erials, realia, ex cur sions,

•
field- t rips, guest speakers et c

•
Est ablishing t he social purpose t hrough discussions or surveys et c
Cross cult ural act ivit ies such as com paring differences in t he use of t he t ex t in t w o
cult ures

31
 • Com paring t he m odel t ext wit h ot her t ext s of t he sam e or cont rast ing t y pe e.g
com paring a j ob int erview w it h a com plex spoken exchange involving close friends,
a work colleague or a st ranger in a service encount er.

Phase 2 Modelling and deconst r uct ing t he t ex t

I n t his st age st udent s:
•
•
I nv est igat e t he st ruct ural pat t ern and language feat ures of t he m odel
Com pare t he m odel wit h ot her exam ples of t he sam e t ext - t ype

Feez and Joyce ( 1998,29) com m ent t hat “ m odelling and deconst ruct ion are
undert aken at bot h t he whole t ext , clause and expression levels. I t is at t his
st age t hat m any t radit ional ESL language t eaching act ivit ies com e int o t heir
own” .
Phase 3 Joint const ruct ion of t he t ext
I n t his st age:
• St udent s begin t o cont ribut e t o t he const r uct ion of whole exam ples of t he t ex t -

•
t y pe
The t eacher gradually reduces t he cont r ibut ion t o t ext const ruct ion, as t he
st udent s m ov e closer t o being able t o cont rol t ext - t ype independent ly

Joint const ruct ion act iv it ies include:

• Teacher quest ioning, discussing and edit ing w hole class const ruct ion, t hen scribing

•
ont o board or OHT

•
Sk elet on t ex t s

•
Jigsaw and inform at ion gap act ivit ies

•
Sm all group const ruct ion of t est s

•
Dict ogloss
Self- assessm ent and peer assessm ent act ivit ies

Phase 4 I ndependent const r uct ion of t he t ex t

I n t his st age:
•
•
St udent s w ork independent ly wit h t he t ext
Learner perform ances are used for achievem ent assessm ent

I ndependent const r uct ion act iv it ies include:

• List ening t ask s, e.g. com prehension act ivit ies in response t o liv e or recorded
m at erial such as perform ing a t ask, sequencing pict ures, num bering, t icking or

•
underlining m at erial on a worksheet , answer ing quest ions

•
List ening and speaking t ask s, e.g. role plays, sim ulat ed or aut hent ic dialogues
Speaking t ask s e.g. spoken present at ion t o class, com m unit y organizat ion,

•
w orkplace
Reading t asks e.g. com prehension act ivit ies in response t o w rit t en m at erial such as
perform ing a t ask , s sequencing pict ures, num bering, t ick ing or underlining

•
m at erial on a w orksheet , answering quest ions
Writ ing t ask s w hich dem and t hat st udent s dr aft and present whole t ext s

Phase 5 Link ing t o relat ed t ext s

I n t his st age st udent s inv est igat e how w hat t hey hav e learnt in t his t eaching/ lear ning cy cle
can be relat ed t o:
•
•
Ot her t ex t s in t he sam e or sim ilar cont ext

•
Fut ure or past cy cles of t eaching and learning

32
Act ivit ies which link t he t ex t - t ype t o relat ed t ext s include:
•
•
Com paring t he use of t he t ext - t ype across different fields

•
Researching ot her t ext - t ypes used in t he sam e field
Role- playing w hat happens if t he sam e t ext - t ype is sued by people w it h different

•
roles and relat ionships

•
Com paring spleen and writ t en m odes of t he sam e t ext - t y pe
Researching how a k ey language feat ure used in t his t ext - t y pe is used in ot her
t ex t - t ypes

Ev a lu a t in g pe r for m a n ce on spe a k in g a ct iv it ie s

The t hird issue involved in planning speaking act ivit ies is det erm ining t he
expect ed level of perform ance on a speaking t ask and t he crit eria t hat will be
used t o assess st udent perform ance. For any act ivit y we use in class, whet her it
be one t hat seeks t o develop proficiency in using t alk as int eract ion, t ransact ion,
or perform ance, we need t o consider what successful com plet ion of t he act ivit y
involves. I s accuracy of pronunciat ion and gram m ar im port ant ? I s each
part icipant expect ed t o speak for about t he sam e am ount of t im e? I s it
accept able if a speaker uses m any long pauses and repet it ions? I f a speaker’s
cont ribut ion t o a discussion is off t opic, does it m at t er?

As t he above quest ions illust rat e, t he t ype of crit eria we use t o assess a speaker’s
oral perform ance during a classroom act ivit y will depend on what kind of t alk we
are t alking about and t he kind of classroom act ivit y we are using. Green,
Christ opher and Lam ( 2002, 228) in a report on t eaching discussion skills
recom m end assigning one st udent t o serve as an observer during a discussion
act ivit y using t he following observat ion form :
Num ber of cont ribut ions
St udent s: A B C D E F
1. Tot al num ber of
cont ribut ions m ade
2. Responding support ively
3. Responding aggressively
4. I nt roducing a new ( relevant )
point
5. Digressing from t he t opic

A speaking act ivit y t hat requires t alk as perform ance, e.g. a m ini- lect ure, would
require very different assessm ent crit eria however. These m ight include:
• Clarit y of present at ion: i.e. t he ext ent t o which t he speaker organizes

•
inform at ion in an easily com prehensible order
Use of discourse m arkers, repet it ion and st ress t o em phasize im port ant
point s and t o m ake t he lect ure st ruct ure m ore salient t o t he list eners

33
Different speaking act ivit ies such as conversat ions, group discussions, and
speeches m ake different t ypes of dem ands on learners. They require different
kinds and levels of preparat ion and support and different crit eria obviously have
t o be used in assessing how well st udent s carry t hem out .

I will conclude wit h a set of quest ions I use t o guide m yself when preparing
speaking act ivit ies for t he classroom or in t ext books and which I use wit h
t eachers in workshops which focus on developing and reviewing classroom
m at erials.

• What will t he focus of t he act ivit y be: t alk as int eract ion, t ransact ion or

•
perform ance?

•
How will t he act ivit y be m odeled?

•
What st ages will t he act ivit y be divided int o?

•
What language support will be needed?

•
What resources will be needed?

•
What learning arrangem ent s will be needed?

•
What level of perform ance is expect ed?
How and when will feedback be given?

Con clu sion s

Approaches t o bot h t he t eaching of list ening and speaking have changed

considerably in recent years as insight s from research and t heory have prom pt ed
a ret hinking of t he processes involved in second language list ening , t he nat ure of
oral int eract ion in a second or foreign language, and a reconsiderat ion of what it
m eans t o t each t hese im port ant com ponent s of second language proficiency.
Cognit ively based view of com prehension have clarified how list ening draws on
different kinds of knowledge – bot h linguist ic, cult ural, and cont ext ual – and
em phasize t he need t o help learners underst and and use bot h bot t om - up and
t op- down processes in list ening as well as m ake use of effect ive list ening
st rat egies. Effect ive approaches t o t eaching list ening need t o m ake a clear
dist inct ion bet ween t eaching and t est ing, and provide learners wit h guided
pract ice in using relevant list ening skills for specific list ening purposes depending
on t heir needs and t heir proficiency level.

Approaches t o t he t eaching of speaking have also been able t o draw on a bet t er

underst anding of t he nat ure of spoken language and of t he charact erist ics of
different t ypes of spoken discourse ( int eract ional, t ransact ional, and
perform ance- based) . The challenge for t eachers and m at erials developers is t o
find st rat egies t hat help learners develop fluency, accuracy, as well as

34
appropriat eness of language use. A com binat ion of t eaching m et hods is
appropriat e depending on whet her t he focus of an act ivit y is accuracy, fluency, or
appropriat eness. The m ost im port ant quest ion in t eaching speaking skills is how
can we help learners m ove beyond t he level of linguist ic com pet ence ( m ast ery of
t he linguist ic syst em ) , t o achieve com m unicat ive com pet ence, t hat is, knowing
how t o use English appropriat ely for a range of different com m unicat iv e
purposes, part icularly social purposes, educat ionally- relat ed purposes and work-
relat ed purposes. Hopefully t he suggest ions out lined above and t he furt her
references list ed below will provide som e of t he answers t o t hese im port ant
quest ions.

35
Re fe r e n ce s an d fu r t h e r r e a ding

Brown, Gillian and George Yule 1983. Teaching t he Spoken Language.

Cam bridge: Cam bridge Universit y Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson. S. 1978. Polit eness: Som e Universals in
Language Use. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Universit y Press.
Buck, G. ( 1995) . How t o becom e a good list ening t eacher. I n
D.Mendelsohn & Rubin, J. ( Eds.) , A guide for t he t eaching of second
language list ening ( pp. 113- 128) . San Diego: Dom inie Press.
Buck, G. ( 2001) . Assessing list ening. Cam bridge, UK: Cam bridge Universit y
Press.
Burns, Anne. 1998. Teaching speaking. Annual Review of Applied
Linguist ics 18, 102- 123
Clark H M and E. V Clark: 1977 Psychology and Language: An
I nt roduct ion t o Psycholinguist ics . New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich..
Field, J. ( 2003) . Prom ot ing percept ion: lexical segm ent at ion in second language
list ening. ELT Journal, 57, 325- 334.
Field, John. The changing face of list ening. English t eaching
professional, 1998, 6, 12- 14.
Fost er, P. 1998. A classroom perspect ive on t he negot iat ion of m eaning.
Applied Linguist ics, 19 ( 1) , 1- 23.
Feez, S. and H. Joyce 1998. Text - Based Syllabus Design. Sydney:
Macquarie Universit y.
Goh, C. ( 1997) Met acognit ive awareness and second language list eners. ELT
Journal, Vol. 51/ 4, Oxford Universit y Press, UK. 1997. pp. 361- 369.
Goh, C. ( 1998) . How learners wit h different list ening abilit ies use com prehension
st rat egies and t act ics. Language Teaching Research, 2, 2, 124- 147.
Goh, C. ( 2000) . A cognit ive perspect ive on language learners’ list ening
com prehension problem s. Syst em , 28, 55- 75.
Goh, C. ( 2002a) . Teaching list ening in t he language classroom . Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Cent re.
Goh, C. ( 2005) . Second language list ening expert ise. I n Johnson, K. ( Ed.) ,
Expert ise in second language learning and t eaching ( pp. 64- 84) . Palgrave
Macm illan, UK.
Goh, C. & Yusnit a, T. ( 2006) Met acognit ive I nst ruct ion in List ening for Young
Learners. ELT Journal. 60/ 3, 222 – 232.
Green, F, E. Christ opher and J.Lam . Developing discussion skills in t he
ESL classroom . I n Jack C Richards and Willy Renandya ( eds) .
Met hodology in Language Teaching. New York: Cam bridge
Universit y Press. 225- 234
Hat ch, E. ( ed.) 1978 Second Language Acquisit ion .Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House 1983
Higgs, T. and R. Clifford 1982. The push t owards com m unicat ion. I n
T.Higgs ( Ed.) , Curriculum , Com pet ence, and t he Foreign
Language Teacher. Skokie,I l: Nat ional Text book Com pany
Jones, Pauline 1996. Planning an oral language program . I n Pauline
Jones ( ed) . Talking t o Learn. Melbourne: PETA 1996 12- 26
Kum aravadivelu, B 1991. Language learning t asks: Teacher int ent ion and
learner int erpret at ion. ELT Journal. 45, ( 2) , 98- 107.
Luom a, Sari 2004. Assessing Speaking. Cam bridge: Cam bridge
Universit y Press.

36
McCart hy, M. and R. Cart er 1997. Language as Discourse: Perspect ives
for Language Teaching. London: Longm an
Mendelsohn, David 1995. Applying learning st rat egies in t he
second/ foreign language list ening com prehension. I n David Mendelsohn
and Joan Rubin ( eds) . A Guide for t he Teaching of Second Language
List ening. San Diego: Dom inie Press 132- 150
Musum eci, D 1996. Teacher- learner negot iat ion in cont ent - based
inst ruct ion: Com m unicat ion or cross purposes? Applied
Linguist ics, 17 ( 3) , 377- 384.
Pawley, A. and Syder.F. 1983. Two puzzles for linguist ic t heory: Nat ive-
like select ion and nat ive- like fluency. I n Jack C Richards and Richard
Schm ids ( eds) . Language and Com m unicat ion. Harlow: Longm an.
Richards, Jack C. 1990. Conversat ionally speaking: approaches t o t he
t eaching of conversat ion. I n Jack C Richards. The Language
Teaching Mat rix. New York: Cam bridge Universit y Press. 67- 85
Richards, Jack C. and Charles Lockhart 1994. Reflect ive Teaching in
Second Language Classroom s. New York: Cam bridge Universit y Press
Schm idt , R abd S.Frot a. 1986. Developing basic conversat ional abilit y in
a second language: a case st udy of an adult learner of Port uguese. I n
R.Day ( ed) Talking t o Learn: Conversat ion in Second Language
Acquisit ion. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Schm idt , R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguist ics, 11, 2, 129- 159.
Slobin, D. 1985. Cross- linguist ic evidence for t he language- m aking
capacit y. I n D.Slobin ( ed) : The Cross Linguist ic St udy of Language
Acquisit ion. Vol 2. Theoret ical I ssues. Hillsdale, N.J. Erlbaum .
St ein, B.S,. and U. Albridge. 1978. The role of concept ual fram eworks in
prose com prehension and recall. Mim eo. Vanderbilt Univ ersit y , Nashville.
Tarone, E., and Liu, G. 1995. Sit uat ional cont ext , variat ion, and second
language acquisit ion t heory. I n. G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer ( Eds) . Principle
and Pract ice in Applied Linguist ics. Oxford: oxford Universit y Press.
Thornbury, Scot t 1998. Com m ent s on direct approaches in L2 inst rucit on.
TESOL Quart erly, 32 ( 1) , 109- 1116
Thornbury, Scot t and Diana Slade 2006. Conversat ion: From descript ion
t o Pedagogy. New York: Cam bridge Universit y Press.
Tsang, W.K. and M. Wong 2002. Conversat ional English: an int eract ive,
collaborat ive and reflect ive approach. I n Jack C Richards and Willy
Renandya ( eds) . Met hodology in Language Teaching. New York:
Cam bridge Universit y Press. 212- 224
Van Pat t en.W.1993. Gram m ar- t eaching for t he acquisit ion rich
classroom . Foreign Language Annals. 26 ( 4) , 435- 450.
Wolvin, A. and Coakely C.G. 1996. List ening ( 5 t h edit ion) . Brown and
Benchm ark Publishers.
Willis, Jane 1996. A Fram ework for Task- Based Learning. Harlow:
Longm an,

37