Department of English Language and Literature SPEAKING IN CURRENT ELT AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS Diploma Thesis Brno 2007 Supervisor: Written by: Mgr. Sv… [615873]

– 1 – MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO
FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Department of English Language and Literature

SPEAKING IN CURRENT ELT
AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Diploma Thesis

Brno 2007

Supervisor: Written by:
Mgr. Sv ětlana Hanušová, PhD. Markéta Foralová

– 2 –

Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity and express m y grateful thanks to the supervisor of my
diploma thesis, Mgr.Sv ětlana Hanušová, PhD., for her kind assistance, valu able advice and
constructive comments which contributed to the fina l form of this work.
My thanks also belong to the respondents, the stude nts and teachers of the four secondary
schools, who devoted their time and effort to fill in the questionnaires which provided the
material for the practical part of the thesis.

Pod ěkování
Ráda bych vyjád řila svoje díky vedoucí mé diplomové práce, Mgr.Sv ětlan ě Hanušové, PhD.,
za její laskavou pomoc, cenné rady a konstruktivní p řipomínky, které p řisp ěly ke kone čné
podob ě této práce.
Moje pod ěkování rovn ěž pat ří všem respondent ům, student ům a u čitel ům čty ř st ředních škol,
za jejich čas a snahu p ři vypl ňování dotazník ů, které posloužily jako materiál pro praktickou
část této práce.

– 3 –

I proclaim that this diploma thesis is a piece of m y independent writing. It was completed
only with the help of the sources acknowledged in b ibliography.
I agree that this diploma thesis is deposited in th e Library of the Faculty of Education at the
Masaryk University and is made available for academ ic purposes.

Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci zpracovala sam ostatn ě, pouze s použitím pramen ů
uvedených v seznamu literatury.
Souhlasím s uložením mé diplomové práce v knihovn ě Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy
univerzity v Brn ě a jejím zp řístupn ěním ke studijním ú čel ům.

In Brno 18 April 2007………………………

– 4 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 7

I. THEORETICAL PART

Chapter 1: The skill of speaking 9
1.1 Transforming the perspectives of language teac hing and learning 10
1.2 The way to Communicative Language Teaching 11
1.3 The role and status of speaking in language le arning and teaching 12
1.4 Speaking: knowledge vs. skill 14
1.5 The notion of communicative competence 15
Chapter 2: Features of spoken interaction 19
2.1 Differences between speech and writing 19
2.2 The influences on speaking: processing and rec iprocity conditions 20
2.3 Prerequisites of speaking 22
2.4 Facilitation devices 24
2.5 What “speaking competently” involves 25
2.6 Negotiation of meaning 28
Chapter 3: Categorizing spoken interaction, Communi cation strategies 31
3.1 Categories of spoken interaction 31
3.2 Concept of genre 33
3.3 Communication strategies 33
3.3.1 Achievement strategies 34
3.3.2 Reduction strategies 35
Chapter 4: The nature of classroom interaction 37
4.1 The “traditional” pattern of classroom interac tion 37
4.2 The features of teacher-learner interaction 39
4.3 The notion of instructional conversation 40
4.4 Conclusion 43
Chapter 5: Teaching speaking 45
5.1 Teachers’ beliefs concerning teaching 45
5.2 Approaches to teaching of spoken language 46
5.3 The methodology of teaching oral skills 47

– 5 – 5.3.1 Littlewood’s methodology of teaching speaki ng 47
5.3.2 Rivers and Temperley’s concept 48
5.3.3 Brumfit’s view: accuracy vs. fluency 50
5.3.4 Hedge’s view on speaking practice 51
5.4 Conclusion 52
Chapter 6: Communicative activities 53
6.1 Communicative activities – definition and aims 53
6.2 Categories of communicative activities 54
6.3 Direct vs. indirect approach to teaching speak ing 58
6.4 Types of communicative activities 60
6.4.1 Discussion 60
6.4.2 Role-play 63
6.4.3 Information-gap activities 65
6.5 Concluding remarks 67
Chapter 7: Students’ problems in speaking 69
7.1 The reasons for students’ reluctance to speak 69
7.2 Suggestions of possible solutions to students’ problems 71

II. PRACTICAL PART

Chapter 8: Research context 74
8.1 The research context 74
8.2 The research aims 75
8.3 The research method 76
8.3.1 The questionnaire for students 76
8.3.2 The questionnaire for teachers 76
8.4 The research sample 77
8.5 The research procedure 78
Chapter 9 Analysis of results 79
9.1 Students’ results 79
9.2 Teachers’ results 94
Chapter 10: Interpretation of results 102
10.1 Students’ motivation and attitudes to learnin g English 102
10.2 Speaking skills in language teaching 104

– 6 – Conclusion 109
Bibliography 111
Appendices 116
Appendix I 116
Appendix II 118
Appendix III 128
Appendix IV 130
Appendix V 131
Appendix VI 133
Appendix VII 135
Appendix VIII 137
Appendix IX 138
Summary 139
Resumé 140

– 7 – INTRODUCTION

In my diploma thesis, I have decided to survey the methodological field and focus my
attention to one of the four language skills, namel y speaking. My concern with this topic is
not accidental for I consider speaking one of the m ajor concepts in language teaching. Not to
decrease the importance of other language skills, h owever, in real-life encounters most
contacts a language learner will possibly make will take the form of oral interaction.
Nonetheless, there are other reasons associated wit h speaking that made me look at this issue
more closely. The “state of affairs” in this area d oes not seem to be very encouraging. It has
been suggested in many studies, and it has also eme rged from my schooling and teaching
experience, that despite its apparent significance this particular skill is being neglected in
many language classrooms. There have been doubts wh ether the amount of time and attention
devoted to speaking practice, including the appropr iateness of techniques applied to these
activities, is sufficient. As a consequence, studen ts may not be used to employing a foreign
language in communication. They may feel insecure a bout using a foreign language, and
possibly be unwilling to speak it even in interpers onal interactions that take place in the
classroom.

In the first, theoretical, part of this diploma the sis, the skill of speaking is examined in
theoretical terms. Chapter 1 seeks to explore and e valuate the current “status” of speaking
within the framework of English Language Teaching. In the subsequent section a distinction
between knowledge and skill in the process of speak ing is drawn. The concept of
“communicative competence” as viewed by different w riters is considered in the final part of
Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 spoken interaction is chara cterized in terms of its distinctive features.
The conditions under which speaking takes place are described. The second part of Chapter 2
is concerned with the interaction management and ne gotiation of meaning. The next chapter
gives an outline of categories of spoken interactio n. In addition, the strategies which students
may employ in compensating for communication diffic ulties are investigated. The following
chapter deals with the nature of classroom interact ion. Also the ways in which teachers may
assist learners in developing their oral skills are discussed. The last part of the theoretical
account is devoted to the main focus of the thesis, the methodology of oral interaction.
Different approaches to teaching speaking together with different methodological frameworks
for teaching oral skills are examined and appraised in Chapter 5. Communicative or fluency-

– 8 – oriented activities constitute the main topic of Ch apter 6. The focus on interaction activities is
intentional as it is only with their help that real language use may be stimulated. The attention
is centred on the activities which have received a prominent place in the development of oral
fluency. Possible causes of learners’ reluctance to speak are analysed in the last chapter.
Eventually, suggestions of suitable solutions to st udents’ problems in speaking are provided.

The second part of the diploma thesis deals with pr actical issues. It is devoted to the research.
The core idea for the research, and at the same tim e for the main focus of the whole diploma
thesis, aroused from the reasons mentioned at the b eginning of the introduction. However, the
primary stimulus to explore this topic came from th e teaching practice. The aim of the
research was to examine and evaluate the position o f speaking in the current English
Language Teaching at the secondary level. In other words, to uncover students’ and teachers’
opinion on the importance of speaking within the fr amework of language learning and
teaching, and at the same time to explore the actua l situation concerning speaking in
secondary school classrooms. Within the main focus, there are several minor aims, which will
be considered in certain sections of the research.

The practical part is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter the research context is
outlined and the research aims delimited. The resea rch method and the research sample are
described in the following section. The procedure u sed for conducting the research is briefly
summarized. In the subsequent chapters, the analysi s of results and their interpretation are
presented.

In the text, I use the pronouns “he”, “his”, “him” when I need to refer to “learner” or
“teacher”. This is only a linguistic convention, it is intended as unmarked form.

– 9 – Chapter 1
THE SKILL OF SPEAKING

Nowadays it is not daring to say that the ability t o speak at least one foreign language is a
necessity. “Language is arguably the defining chara cteristic of the human species and
knowledge of language in general, as well as abilit y to use one’s first and, at least one other
language, should be one of the defining characteris tics of the educated individual” (Nunan 1999
71). The world has become smaller. It is said it ha s turned into the size of the so-called
“global village”. We are living in the time of imme nse technological inventions where
communication among people has expanded way beyond their local speech communities
(Ellis 1997 3). Today receiving education, language education not excepting, is not an issue
connected exclusively with schools, the time requir es everyone to learn throughout their
lifetimes. Therefore learning a second language has become a means of keeping up with the
pace of the rapidly changing world. Nowadays a fore ign/second language forms a permanent
part of all types of curriculum, from primary schoo ls to universities, not mentioning an
employment where a person, in most cases, can hardl y survive without this ability. The
demands of the contemporary society together with t he position of English as an international
language (McKay 5) may present a reason for learnin g this language in particular.

Within language learning 1 the skill of speaking constitutes presumably one o f the major
concepts. In a narrower sense, a good command of a language may be compared to the ability
to speak that language well. At the same time teach ing oral skills presents one of the greatest
challenges within the framework of ELT. In Chapter 1 the skill of speaking is examined in
theoretical terms. Before embarking on this “task”, the developments that took place in
foreign language learning and teaching in the last three decades will be briefly summarized.
The following section deals with a distinction betw een knowledge and skill in the process of
speaking. Eventually, the notion of communicative c ompetence is explored.

1 “‘Second language acquisition (learning)’, in shor t SLA, refers to the subconscious or conscious proc esses by
which a language other than the mother tongue is le arnt in a natural or tutored setting. It covers the development
of phonology, lexis, grammar, and pragmatic knowled ge, but has been largely confined to morphosyntax” (Ellis
1991 6).

– 10 – 1.1 Transforming the perspectives of language teach ing and learning

In the last three decades of the 20 th century, the concept of second language teaching a nd
learning underwent significant changes 2. The objectives of second language teaching and
learning were gradually revised in connection with the changes in learners’ needs and also
demands that were placed on them. The perception of language as a system and its function
transformed quite rapidly during a decade.

Until the late 1960s language was considered a syst em of rule-governed structures that were
hierarchically arranged (Nunan 1999 246). This view of language undoubtedly determined the
nature of language teaching and learning. At that t ime the objective for language learners was
to learn, or better to say to memorize, these presc ribed rules. In the process of language
teaching the attention was focused purely on the st ructure of a language, i.e. its linguistic
forms. The emphasis was placed almost solely on the correctness of the language structures.
In order to master the forms precisely massive prac tice (repetition and drills) was applied.
Hardly any importance was attached to the overall p urpose of language, i.e. using the
language for communicating meanings. The veracity o f this statement could be demonstrated
on recommendations of contemporary language special ists. They proposed that language
teaching should have been concentrated almost exclu sively on presenting and practising the
basic syntactic structures (Nunan 9). The attention devoted to the development of the
remaining language levels, i.e. phonological, seman tic and pragmatic, should have been
limited to the minimum.

Much to language learners’ advantage, during the 19 70s the perception of language as a
system began to alter. Nunan notes that at that tim e language specialists – linguists and
language educators – started a “reappraisal of lang uage itself“(1999 9). The important shift

2 Littlewood lists important developments that took place in teaching and learning over last few decade s (1990
1). It has been acknowledged that learning is not a simple reflection of teaching. Furthermore, the ro ute a teacher
decides to follow in teaching a second language doe s not necessarily correspond to the route the learn er is taking
in his learning. Together with these gradual change s, the growing interest in understanding how langua ge
learners acquire knowledge of a second language aro se. According to Littlewood the developments includ e (2) :
– the process of education tended to become more ‘l earner-centred’;
– the importance of students’ active participation in learning a second language was highlighted in
connection with studies of first language acquisiti on;
– individual differences among students began to be taken in account more than before;
– the crucial point was the recognition that the me thods and techniques applied in language teaching o ften
did not succeed in producing effective learning.

– 11 – was seen in the reassessment of the view of languag e as the system of syntactic rules to the
“system for the expression of meaning” (Nunan 1999 9). This recognition reflected in the
nature of language teaching. Consequently, the conc ept of “communicative language
teaching”3 appeared (“Communicative Language Teaching”). The influence of this new
concept became soon apparent in the newly written t extbooks and syllabus designs. But the
question whether the influence of the new approach penetrated deeply enough into language
teachers’ methodology and through teachers into cla ssroom interaction remained unanswered.

1.2 The way to Communicative Language Teaching

Learners in traditional (grammar-translation) langu age classes spent most of their time practising
grammatical structures almost to perfection, readin g and translating texts. The primary focus was
put on the grammar of the second language. Learners ’ knowledge about the language was quite
superior, the problem occurred when they were expec ted to put their theoretical knowledge to
practice. The effect of the following approach to l anguage teaching, the audio-lingual method,
was similar. Although the learners were then engage d also in listening and responding (“The
Audio-lingual Method”), they were still not able to use their knowledge effectively. In fact, they
only repeated “ready-made” phrases. They were not c apable of reacting in real, unpredicted and
unprepared situations. Learners could spend years l earning the language but the results of “their
trying” were still minimal as far as their ability to communicate was concerned.

Eventually, it was acknowledged that the traditiona l language teaching methods were not
efficient enough for learners to achieve the abilit y to communicate. There was a need of a
completely different approach to be employed. It wa s feasible that the mentioned shift in
seeing language as a system for the expression of m eaning be incorporated in the “new”
methods of teaching as well. If language was then r egarded a means of expression, a means of
communication, it would have been reasonable if it was taught in the same way – as
communication. Learners needed to realize that lang uage was not only a set of prescribed
rules to be memorized. This idea is aptly described by Nunan: “Language as communication
involves the active use of grammar and vocabulary t o listen and read effectively and to speak
with and write to other people” (1999 71).

3 Objectives of CLT: students will learn to use lang uage as a means of expression; students will use la nguage as
a means of expressing values and judgements; studen ts will learn to express the functions that best me et their
own communication needs (“Communicative Language Te aching”).

– 12 – 1.3 The role and status of speaking in language lea rning and teaching

As it was implied in the introduction, the skill of speaking has been recently considered by
many methodologists a priority in language teaching . Of all the four skills, Ur concludes,
speaking seems intuitively the most important. Most language learners, she adds, are
primarily interested in learning to speak (120). Si milar view is held by Nunan, who says that
the ability to operate in a second language can be actually equated to the ability to speak that
language (225). Hedge gives the evidence that speak ing has recently obtained, at least from
textbook writers, the attention it deserves (261):

“Learners need to develop at the same time a knowle dge of grammar, vocabulary,
functional language and communicative skills. Atten tion to the systems of language is
crucial, but the development of fluency and context ual appropriacy are equally important
goals.” (Look Ahead 3- 4)

The reasons for learning to speak competently are f ormulated as follows: Learners may need
the skill to establish and maintain relationships, to negotiate, to influence people. Speaking is
the skill by which learners are assessed when the f irst impression is formed (Hedge 261).

The development of speaking skill, in terms of its importance in language teaching, can be
illustrated by the position ascribed to this skill in different approaches to teaching.
Presumably the most striking contrast would be reve aled in comparison of the recent view on
speaking with the views held by advocates of gramma r-translation or audio-lingual method.
In these approaches the skill of speaking was rarel y emphasized in connection to its purpose,
i.e. the ability to use a language in real-life sit uations, the ability to communicate. If it was
addressed, then it usually was only in terms of acc uracy. That can be seen in the following
quotation by Mackey:

“Oral expression involves not only [….] the use of the right sounds in the right patterns
of rhythm and intonation, but also the choice of wo rds and inflections in the right order to
convey the right meaning” (Bygate 5).

The quotation reflects the conception of speaking a t that time. The emphasis on the formal
part, i.e. the correct sounds, the correct choice o f words and inflections etc., led to the
accuracy oriented practice. Types of activities suc h as oral drills, model dialogue practice and
pattern practice (“The Audio-lingual method”) were widely used in teaching speaking. The
result was that, although learners knew the pattern s and memorized the rules, they were not
able to use their knowledge in practice. They were not capable of exploiting the rules and

– 13 – patterns in real interaction. One of the possible c auses of their “inability” could be the lack of
opportunities to use their theoretical knowledge in purposeful communication. They were not
exposed to situations when they would be made to us e whatever language they had at their
disposal to convey their message or to try to under stand their interlocutor’s message. There
was not much prominence given to the fact that ther e was a difference between “knowledge
about a language” and “skill in using it” in commun ication (Bygate 3).

1.4 Speaking: knowledge vs. skill

The aim of teaching speaking is for learners to be able to use a language freely and fully in
communication. Both teaching and learning to speak are, possibly, not easy and effortless
processes. There are many “wheels” in the mechanism that have to work in agreement, so
that “the whole” could function effectively. If the ultimate goal is the ability to communicate,
then learners must be able to understand what other s wish to share and at the same time be
able to convey their own messages. The complexity o f learning to communicate in a second
language is recorded in the scheme by Rivers and Te mperley (4) (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Processes involved in learning to commu nicate (Rivers and Temperley 4)

– 14 – The authors comment that the schema is not sequenti al but parallel. According to them, skill-
getting and skill-using are continually proceeding hand in hand. “There is a genuine
interaction from the beginning, with students explo ring the full scope of what is being
learned” (Rivers and Temperley 4). However, not onl y learning to communicate but also
learning a second language (or Second Language Acqu isition) in general is a complex process
with many factors pertaining to it (Ellis 1991 4). For more details on Factors in SLA, see
Appendix I.

The distinction between knowledge about a language and skill in using it was already
mentioned (Bygate 3). In teaching practice the dist inction gradually grew in importance. It is
apparent that a learner, in order to be able to spe ak a language, needs to have a command at
least of basic grammatical structures and vocabular y. This part represents the “knowledge
about a language”. However, it was recognized that knowledge itself is not sufficient for
successful functioning in a second language. The ot her part of communicative ability that
learners in grammar-translation and audio-lingual c lasses usually lacked was the “skill”. The
presupposition that knowledge itself was not satisf actory was confirmed mainly in practice. It
meant that knowledge had to be put into action.

For delimitation of the two notions, i.e. knowledge and skill, Bygate uses a parallel with a driver
of a car. A driver, before he sets out on the road for the first time, has to know something about
a car. He has to know where various controls are, w here the pedals are and how to operate them,
how the car as a whole functions. But he would not be able to guide the car safely along the
road only with this knowledge. What he also needs i s skill. When he eventually sets out on the
road, he will not be there on his own. There will b e many other drivers as well. Thus, in order to
drive safely and smoothly, he has to be able to han dle various obstacles or unexpected problems
that may occur in his path. In this sense, speaking is similar to driving (Bygate 3).

In communication the learner does not manage only w ith knowledge either. It is not sufficient
for him to be aware of how sentences are formed in general, to know certain amount of
vocabulary concerning the particular topic or remem ber certain grammatical rules. He should
also be capable of forming sentences “on the spot” and adjusting his contribution to the
immediate situation. This involves drawing on his t heoretical knowledge, making quick
decisions and managing difficulties that may arise. It may be worthwhile to know what

– 15 – differentiates skill from knowledge. According to B ygate, “a fundamental difference is that
while both can be understood and memorized, only a skill can be imitated and practised” (4).

The notion of skill can be interpreted in more than a single way. Bygate speaks about at least
two types of skill, i.e. motor-perceptive skills an d interaction skills (5). Motor-perceptive skills
were discerned already in audio-lingual approach to teaching. They are context-free and form
the relatively superficial aspect of skill. They ca n be compared to the kind of skills a driver
employs when he learns to operate the controls of a car on an empty road far from the busy
traffic. “Motor-perceptive skills involve perceivin g, recalling, and articulating in correct order
sounds and structures of the language”. The second type of skill is represented by interaction
skill. In general, interaction skills involve using knowledge and basic motor-perceptive skills to
achieve communication (Bygate 5-6). It is evident f rom the previous statement that in order to
communicate both types of skill have to be employed . However, there is still another step to be
taken in the long and effortful process of learning to speak a second language. This step means
securing the transition of the skills from controll ed classroom environment to real-life use
(Bradwell). This very step was highlighted by Wilki ns as early as in 1975:

“As with everything else he [the learner] will only learn what falls within his experience.
If all his language production is controlled from o utside, he will hardly be competent to
control his own language production. He will not be able to transfer his knowledge from
a language-learning situation to a language-using s ituation” (Wilkins 76).

Interaction skills may be also described as the ski lls of monitoring one’s own speech
production and making decisions in communication. T he decisions in communication include
e.g. “what to say, how to say it, whether to develo p it, in accordance with one’s intentions,
while maintaining the desired relations with others ” (Bygate 6).

1.5 The notion of communicative competence

In the previous section it was outlined what a lear ner of a second language needs to know
and be capable of doing in order to function effect ively in a particular language. It was
concluded that he does not manage only with knowled ge about a language, he also needs
skill in using it in communication. The ability to communicate was described in terms of
knowledge and skill. However, there is also another way in which the ability can be
conceived and analysed. As was implied above, the l earner needs to master syntactic
structures of the language, be acquainted with cert ain amount of vocabulary and know how

– 16 – to articulate individual sounds of the language. Al l these aspects form his linguistic
competence. Although linguistic competence is indis pensable for one who wants to speak a
second language, it is not the only requirement. A term of “communicative competence” was
introduced by the sociolinguist Hymes in 1974 to de scribe the whole “art of communicating”
in a second language (“Dell Hymes”). Communicative competence, according to Nunan,
includes not only linguistic competence but also a range of sociolinguistic and conversational
skills that enable the speaker to realize how to sa y what to whom, when etc. (226). Other
methodologists were also interested in this subject , especially in which elements it
comprises. Savignon, after conducting a research in the development of communication skills
in early 1970s, provided the following definition:

Communicative competence is “the ability to functio n in a truly communicative setting-
that is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adjust itself to the
total informational input, both linguistic and para linguistic, of one or more interlocutors”
(Savignon 9).

Littlewood is also engaged in exploring the notion of communicative competence. He prefers a
term “communicative ability”. He suggests four area s to be included in communicative ability:
/square4 a learner has to develop a high degree of linguisti c competence, i.e. he must be flexible
in using the linguistic system freely in order to e xpress an intended message,
/square4 a learner has to understand that forms he learned a s a part of linguistic system perform
communicative functions, they form a communicative system,
/square4 a learner must be capable of using strategies for m anaging communication deficiencies,
/square4 a learner has to be aware of social meaning connect ed to linguistic forms, he should at
least recognize and use generally acceptable forms and this way avoid possible offence
(Littlewood 1994 6).

Communicative competence is considered the goal of language acquisition/learning within
the framework of language teaching in the USA (“Goa l: Communicative Competence”). It is
characterized as “the ability to use the language c orrectly and appropriately to accomplish
communication goals.” “The ability to communicate c ompetently” represents the requested
outcome of language learning. Learners are not expe cted to use the language exactly as
native speakers. There are four areas forming commu nicative competence:

– 17 – /square4 Linguistic competence – the ability to use the gram mar, syntax and vocabulary of the
particular language.
/square4 Sociolinguistic competence – the ability to use the language appropriately to the given
situation, i.e. according to the relationship betwe en the speaker and listener, the topic, the
setting.
/square4 Discourse competence – the ability to understand th e context, to know how to assemble
longer stretches of language to make a coherent who le.
/square4 Strategic competence – the ability to manage diffic ulties that may arise in
communication.

Richards, Platt and Weber are concerned with defini ng of communicative competence as
well. Their account, though it is not fully identic al with the previous one, share some of its
characteristics. Communicative competence in their view consists of:

“(a) knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language; (b) knowledge of rules
of speaking, e.g. knowing how to begin and end conv ersations, knowing what topics can
be talked about in different types of speech events , knowing which address forms should
be used with different persons one speaks to and in different situations; (c) knowing how
to use and respond to different types of speech act s such as requests, apologies, thanks,
and invitations; (d) knowing how to use language ap propriately” (Richards, Platt and
Weber 49).

Probably the most elaborate description of communic ative competence is provided by Hedge.
She lists a range of implications that the notion o f communicative competence has for
teaching and learning. According to her, there are five areas a learner has to master to be able
to communicate adequately. She created the followin g table to illustrate what communicative
competence involves (Hedge 56):

Area The aims for learners

Linguistic competence – to achieve accuracy in the grammatical forms of the language
– to pronounce the forms accurately
– to use stress, rhythm and intonation to express meaning
– to build a range of vocabulary
– to learn the script and spelling rules
– to achieve accuracy in syntax and word formation

Pragmatic competence – to learn the relationship between grammatical fo rms and functions
– to use stress and intonation to express attitude and emotion
– to learn a scale of formality
– to understand and use emotive tone
– to use the pragmatic rules of language
– to select language forms appropriate to topic, l istener, etc.

– 18 – Discourse competence – to take longer turns, use discourse markers, and open and close
conversations
– to appreciate and be able to produce contextuali zed written texts in
a variety of genres
– to be able to use cohesive devices in reading an d writing texts
– to be able to cope with authentic texts

Strategic competence – to be able to take risks in using both spoken an d written language
– to use a range of communication strategies
– to learn the language needed to engage in some o f these strategies,
e.g. “What do you call a thing that/person who… ”

Fluency – to deal with the information gap of real discour se
– to process language and respond appropriately wi th a degree of ease
– to be able to respond with reasonable speed in “ real time”

In this account, communicative competence comprises five interrelated fields. Three of them,
i.e. linguistic, discourse and strategic competence , are common to both, the “American”
model and Hedge’s model. The characteristics of the se three fields correspond more or less
in both models. However, there are slight differenc es to be found in the remaining fields. The
“American” model uses the term “sociolinguistic com petence” to describe the ability to use
language appropriately to the circumstances. In Hed ge’s model the content of sociolinguistic
competence is covered by the term “pragmatic compet ence”. In addition, the latter model
states the scope of this particular competence more fully. Finally, there is the last field of the
latter model which lacks its counterpart in the for mer. It is the field of fluency. In Hedge’s
model fluency is regarded an inseparable part of co mmunicative competence. The author deals
with fluency also in the chapter devoted exclusivel y to speaking:

“Fluency means responding coherently within the tur ns of the conversation, linking
words and phrases, using intelligible pronunciation and appropriate intonation, and doing
all of this without undue hesitation” (Hedge 261).

According to Hedge, the definition implies that spe akers can interpret the meaning of the
interlocutor’s message, assess it and respond appro priately (261). The “American” model does not
present fluency as an independent area. It is consi dered to be included in the four mentioned areas.

The concept of communicative competence was outline d in several versions according to the
views of individual writers. The main components of this competence may provide a framework
in terms of what to focus on when evaluating langua ge skills. The idea of a framework for
assessment was elaborated in The Common European Fr amework of Reference, which
constitutes a central document concerning teaching and learning in Europe (see Appendix II).

– 19 – Chapter 2
FEATURES OF SPOKEN INTERACTION

In Chapter 1 the role and status of speaking within the framework of the current ELT was
assessed. A distinction between knowledge and skill in the process of speaking was made.
Eventually, the concept of communicative competence was considered and its main
constituents described. Chapter 2 analyses the skil l of speaking in terms of its distinctive
features. The factors pertaining to spoken interact ion are outlined. The subsequent part of the
chapter examines what is involved in “speaking comp etently”. It deals with the interaction
management and processes and skills that are engage d in negotiation of meaning.

2.1 Differences between speech and writing

The importance of speaking within language learning /teaching has been already weighed up
in Chapter 1, section 1.3. The priority this skill has in everyday communication and
interaction is beyond dispute. At the same time, it is precisely the spoken interaction in which
the ability (or inability) to use the language is d emonstrated most. Undoubtedly, developing
the skill of speaking is a challenging task. Spoken language, as was analysed and concluded
by many studies, differs from written language in m any respects.

The differences, in fact, follow from the distinct nature of both speech and writing. A spoken
interaction is subjected to the conditions under wh ich it takes place. There are at least two
kinds of conditions which are to be taken in consid eration (Bygate 8). The first of the two
kinds are processing conditions . They refer to the time constraint under which spe aking
takes place. In other words, they allude to the fac t that speaking is “performed” under the
pressure of time. The second kind is related to the interpersonal dimension of interaction. The
character of a relationship among participants of c ommunication is expressed by the means
of reciprocity conditions . Before considering both kinds of conditions and t heir influence on
spoken language, the features of written language w ill be briefly summarized.

Written texts are not usually addressed to the part icular individual or individuals. They are
not composed in the way people speak. Their languag e uses specific vocabulary, their
sentences are long and complex, relationships among them expressed by conjunctions,

– 20 – conjuncts etc. Written texts tend to be more explic it because there is no direct contact
between a writer and readers, no possibility of fur ther clarification or explanation. Bygate
remarks that written language is in this sense “ill -adjusted to the two sets of conditions” that
were mentioned above, i.e. processing and reciproci ty conditions (11).

2.2 The influences on speaking: processing and reci procity conditions

Speaking proceeds under the constraint of time. The impact of this “time limitation” is not
insignificant. In order to speak fluently and at a normal pace a speaker has to master the time
factor of speech, the processing conditions . Processing conditions do not usually present a
problem for native speakers. But with language lear ners who are not used to speaking in
class, moreover if there is a strong emphasis on ac curacy in their lessons, this aspect of
speech may cause difficulties. The skill of speakin g requires speakers to process language
readily in their heads. While speaking a speaker ha s to recall words and phrases from his
memory, to plan and organize his message into gramm atically and syntactically correct and
comprehensible sentences. The sentences in spoken i nteraction are not usually as long, and
their structure as complicated, as it is in written language. Indeed, it is not virtually possible
due to the limitations speech involves. Apart from the time factor the spoken language may
be affected also by memory problems, problems in pl anning and production under pressure
(Bygate 11). Mistakes may occur not only in syntact ic structure of clauses or sentences but
also in wording and other aspects of spoken languag e. Another typical feature of speech
resulting from the time dimension is its “short-liv ed existence”. Words and sentences, once
spoken and heard (or possibly not heard), are gone. That is why memory and concentration
are such important factors in the process of both s peaking and listening.

Relating to spoken interaction, a suggestion to dis tinguish utterances on the basis of their
length was made. Brown and Yule make a distinction between “long and short speaking
turns” (27-28). Long speaking turns such as a farew ell speech or TV talk-show are in most
cases prepared and considered in advance, whereas m ore frequent short turns are usually
assembled “on the spot” as the interaction develops .

However, it is not only processing conditions that exert a considerable influence on spoken
language. Another determinant that comes to the for e is the relationship between participants
of interaction. The relationship is expressed in te rms of reciprocity conditions . Reciprocity

– 21 – conditions indicate which of the participants of th e interaction is entitled to speak, (and
possibly when it is appropriate to do so). In a con versational exchange a speaker is expected
to adjust his speech in relation to whom he is talk ing. The speaker has to take his listeners in
account since they participate in the interaction a s well. They can ask questions, comment on
what the speaker has just said, demand for clarific ation or repetition etc. (Hedge 262).
Bradwell comments on the complex character of speak ing as follows: “The nature of speech
and demands it puts on learners: the time pressures , the grammatical and lexical choices to be
made, the rapid planning and execution needed to be effective, the role as listener and
importance of understanding, all contribute to the complexity of the skill” (Bradwell).

Since most speaking involves interacting with other s thus language learners not excepting
need to be able to take part in an interaction, bot h as speakers and listeners. They should be
given opportunities to engage in interactions and p ractise reacting in an appropriate manner.
Harmer mentions that interacting with others presup poses a skill of listening and
understanding of how the other participants are fee ling (271). Learners also cannot manage
interactions without the knowledge of how to take t urns, interrupt, ask for clarification etc.
and allow others to do so. All of the above mention ed issues require learners’ attention.

In spoken interaction the interlocutor may signal h is agreement or disagreement with what
the speaker has just remarked. In addition, he can indicate that he is not able to follow the
speaker. In this way misunderstandings can be clear ed away. The speaker has to be aware of
his interlocutor’s social status and to adapt the l evel of formality in his speech accordingly.
The speaker takes the advantage of having his liste ners around him. He can adjust and
change his message promptly according to the listen ers’ reaction. This “privilege”, however,
is not enjoyed by a writer. A writer finds himself in quite a different position. He cannot see
his readers’ reaction. It is the same with readers who cannot let the writer know when they do
not understand or are not interested. That is why t he writer has to anticipate or guess what
readers already know, what they are able to underst and and also what they are likely to read
(Bygate 12).

On the one hand, the reciprocal dimension, that is typical of spoken interaction, may seem to
be advantageous for the reasons that were enumerate d above. Furthermore, it could be seen
as compensation for the time constraint and other r estrictions that limit the individual’s
capacity for expression. On the other hand, recipro city imposes an obligation on the speaker.

– 22 – The speaker is expected to devote his attention to listeners whether or not he wishes to. He is
bound to display constant sensitivity to listeners’ reactions and at the same time the ability to
adjust his speech accordingly. If he does not do so , he could be considered rude, socially
immature or even stupid (Bygate 13).

2.3 Prerequisites of speaking

In the process of speaking a speaker/learner is exp osed to the two kinds of conditions that
were examined in the previous section. In order to cope with these conditions, a learner, as it
was repeatedly emphasized, has to be “equipped” wit h knowledge and skill. An outline of
elements that are necessary for spoken production i s provided by Harmer. According to
Harmer, among the prerequisites of speaking are ran ked (2001 269):

/square4 Lexis and grammar: In fluent and spontaneous speech quite a high numb er of “set
phrases” can be identified. These “lexical phrases” , as Harmer refers to them, perform
various communicative functions. The advantage of u sing these phrases in communication
consists in their contribution to the fluent and sm ooth progress of interaction (Nunan 1999
227, Bygate 17). Teachers should therefore consider what phrases could be of practical use
to their students. Consequently, they can provide s tudents with phrases of the particular
function suitable for different contexts such as ex pressing opinions, making suggestions,
agreeing, disagreeing, apologizing, talking on the telephone etc.
/square4 Negotiation language: The interaction involves negotiation of meaning. In order to be
comprehensible, speakers use various means to check understanding, e.g. by repetition,
clarification of meaning, structuring their speech etc. Listeners participate in the speaker’s
effort to be intelligible by signalling that they d o not understand, asking for clarification etc.
An early instruction in this “negotiatory” language appears to be constructive (Hedge 262).
/square4 Connected speech: In connected speech individual sounds of English are not pronounced
in their full forms. They are liable to changes due to the influence of surrounding sounds,
stress patterns and other aspects of spoken languag e. Thus they may be subject to
assimilation, omission, addition of another sounds (in linking), weakening. In order to
sound naturally, learners should be engaged in prac tising the aspects of connected speech.
/square4 Expressive devices: Spoken interaction comprises not only the spoken wo rd (verbal
expression) but also the use of non-verbal expressi on (the “body language”) and

– 23 – paralinguistic aspects (e.g. features such as stres s, intonation or changes in intensity of
voice). Speakers employ these devices to in order t o help convey the intended meaning and
promote the contact with their interlocutors. Stude nts should be able to use at least some of
these expressive devices.

Also Brown, in dealing with spoken interaction, lis ts the features of spoken language which
can make speaking and consequently understanding th e spoken word, especially for
beginners, an intricate task. These are the mentioned characteristics (270):

/square4 Reduced forms: Contracted forms, elision, reduced vowels in weak syllables, etc. All
these features are typical of spoken language. Stud ents should be acquainted with these
features if they wish to promote their understandin g of spoken language and do not want
their speech to sound unnatural.
/square4 Stress, rhythm, and intonation: These characteristics of spoken English probably c ause
the greatest difficulty for foreign learners. “The stress-timed rhythm of spoken English and
its intonation patterns convey important messages” (Brown 271).
/square4 Clustering: When speaking, native speakers group words into cl usters. Fluent oral
performance consists of phrases. If the words in an utterance were separated from each
other, the speech would sound “chopped”. Students s hould practise delivering their speech
in clusters within which breathing pauses are incor porated.
/square4 Redundancy: Redundancy is another feature which distinguishes spoken language from
written form. Whereas in writing redundancy is cons idered undesirable, in spoken
interaction speakers can utilize it to make the int ended meaning clearer.
/square4 Performance variables: While speaking, a speaker is allowed time to organ ize his
thoughts and think about what to say next. In Engli sh, however, the “pauses for thinking”
are not silent but filled with hesitation “noises” such as um, well, you know, you see, I
mean, kind of etc. This time is also used for correction and back tracking. In order to gain
the “thinking time” students should practise how to pause and hesitate appropriately.
/square4 Colloquial language: It is advisable that students are made familiar wi th expressions of
colloquial language and are capable of incorporatin g some of these different idioms,
phrases and words in their speech.
/square4 Interaction: Students are expected not only to speak for themse lves but also to be able to
interact with others since this is the true core of real communication.

– 24 – 2.4 Facilitation devices

The previous section summarized the features that c an make speaking and understanding
speech of others more demanding. This one, on the c ontrary, aims to introduce the means
which can aid speakers in managing the interaction. There are certain devices that can
alleviate at least some of the “speaking tensions”. The examination of these is provided by
Bygate (14-21). In the following paragraphs the mai n points of his account are highlighted.
(Allusions to facilitation devices can be also foun d in Coughlin who in his account probably
draws on Bygate.)

Possibly the most imposing of the tensions speaking entails is the time pressure. The
conditions of speaking concerning the time pressure were considered in the section 2.2.
Speaking is affected by the time constraint in the sense that a speaker is given very limited
time to act. In a very short while the speaker has to think of what to say, how to say that, say
that and at the same time monitor his speech and hi s listener’s reaction (Bygate 14). The time
pressure makes heavy demands on the speaker. Fortun ately, there are ways of coping with
these demands. Speakers/learners may employ certain devices in order to facilitate their
speaking, and in this way make themselves and their speech feel more relaxed. When
speaking, speakers tend to use a simpler sentence s tructure (Coughlin). They usually link
clauses or sentences loosely with the help of coord inating conjunctions such as “and”, “or”,
“but” (Bygate 15). This “tactic” provides the speak er with a better possibility of improvising
since coordination, in contrast to subordination, d oes not require such a complicated sentence
structure. Thus the speaker need not plan so much i n advance and can make necessary
adjustments more smoothly.

Another feature of spoken language, which can be re garded a facilitation device, is “ellipsis”.
For economy of speech speakers do not repeat unnece ssary items. That can result in
producing incomplete sentences, e.g. “When?”, “does what?”, “the blue one” (Bygate 14).
The listener is usually able to recover the omitted items from the context. Coughlin adds that
speakers also tend to avoid complex noun groups. Co nsequently, spoken language becomes
less dense than written language (Coughlin). The ne xt possibility Bygate hints at is the use of
set phrases and expressions (17). In general, their value lies in their contribution to the fluency
of speech. These will be discussed in more detail i n section 2.5.

– 25 – The last one to note is the device already recalled by Brown (see p.23). He mentions this
device or “tactic” in connection to “performance va riables”. Bygate uses the term “time-
creating devices” (18). This term refers to hesitat ions, pauses and fillers as outlined above. By
using fillers, hesitations, etc. the speaker gains the time for organizing and formulating his ideas.

2.5 What “speaking competently” involves

Speaking does not take place “in a vacuum”. In most cases people do not speak on their own
or to themselves. Speaking is a reciprocal activity . For an interaction to be meaningful, a
speaker needs a partner, an interlocutor. Taking pa rt in an interaction, e.g. having a
conversation, requires certain skills and certain l anguage to be available at the learner’s
disposal. But before the language and skills necess ary for managing interaction are
considered, the provision of background information appears to be relevant.

In order to make the nature of interaction clear, s till another distinction is to be drawn. The
“basic” division of language into the spoken and wr itten form is obviously not the final one.
Within the spoken interaction a further distinction between “one-way” speech (e.g. a public
speech) and “two-way” speech (e.g. a friendly conve rsation) appears to be relevant (Cook
116). “One-way” speech can be described as having a low degree of reciprocity as opposed
to “two-way” speech characterized by a considerably higher reciprocity degree (116). In
relation to his division of spoken discourse Cook p resents the following scheme for
categorizing instances of spoken interaction (116):

a) planned –––- unplanned
b) socially structured –––- less sociall y structured
c) aided by writ ing –––- unaided by writing
d) less reciprocal (one-way) – ––– more reciprocal (two-way)

Figure 2.1: “Dimensions” of spoken interaction (Coo k 116)

When turning back to the notion of interaction in t erms of its “demands” on learners, the
latest developments in this area need to be mention ed. There has been a growing tendency in
ELT to put an emphasis, apart from traditional char acteristics of competent oral performance
such as accuracy in grammatical forms, in lexical e xpression, and comprehensible

– 26 – pronunciation, on so-called “management skills” (He dge 262). Management skills were
studied in the samples of native speaker conversati ons. According to Hedge, they include
skills concerning opening and closing conversations , turn-taking, contributing to a
conversational exchange, responding and interruptin g (262). The importance of these skills to
spoken interaction can be easily demonstrated. If a ny of these skills are poorly developed or
completely missing, the communication, if it begins at all, will presumably break down.
Teachers therefore should reflect on developing the se skills in their learners. Learners should
be given opportunities to engage in meaningful conv ersational exchanges. Teachers may
decide to provide their students with possible phra ses they can use at individual stages of the
interaction. However, methodologists’ views on teac hing spoken interaction may vary.
Pattison, for example, claims the opposite. In her opinion, no model phrases should be
supplied (unless students use them naturally) as st udents may feel hindered in expressing
themselves by the “obligation” to use the “prescrib ed” language (Cook 117). In Czech
language classrooms, in my opinion, it may be worth while to equip students with some
useful phrases and expressions as there is a very l imited chance for students to acquire these
outside the class. The phrases may be offered to st udents’ attention. Consequently, it may be
left to students’ consideration whether or not they will use them in their speech.

If students are to manage spoken interaction, they should follow the “rules” by which
interactions are governed. Interaction usually “cop ies” the logical pattern of opening, body
(content) and closing. Moreover, between each two p oints there are several stages to be
found. If interaction is to be smooth, these stages must be interrelated. Speakers, in addition to
observing the “rules”, have to decide on the approp riate level of formality and politeness of
their speech in accordance with the status and role of their interlocutor (Hedge 267).

In this text conversation was chosen as the most feasible representation of s poken
interaction. Conversation is to a large extent unpr edictable, involving spontaneous reactions
and a more equal relationship between participants than other types of spoken interaction
(Cook 116). As conversation belongs to “two-way” ty pe of speech, it is necessary for
learners to be equipped with previously acknowledge d management skills. Participants of
conversation need to be capable of performing vario us “tasks”. These include initiating a
conversation, turn-taking, contributing to an excha nge, negotiating the meaning, etc. They
even need to know how to close a conversation in a socially appropriate manner. According
to the characteristics associated with conversation , the “whole conversational act” could

– 27 – seem to be truly spontaneous and unplanned. However , there are set phrases and expressions
speakers use to assist them in otherwise spontaneou s interaction. Fortunately enough, some
of the phrases suitable for the different purposes, that were described above, can be identified
and learned. Some examples of these are provided by Hedge (267-268) and Cook (118).

Openings and closings
For initiating a conversation Cook gives examples o f common expressions such as “Hi”,
“Hello there”, “How are you?”. Hedge mentions conve ntional openings, e.g. “It’s a nice day,
isn’t it?”, with the tag question at the end inviti ng a response. She points out the form
openings usually take, i.e. question followed by an swer as in “Busy here today, isn’t it?” or
statement followed by response. As examples of clos ings Cook offers “Well anyway”,
“Right”, “So” or “OK then”. Hedge speaks about the “pre-closing signal” that needs to
precede the actual closing. It indicates that the c onversation is about to end. The examples
might be “I don’t want to keep you…..” or “Well, I must think about going….”

Turn-taking
Turn-taking may present a problem for learners. The action itself, though native speakers
may not even realize it, is quite complex. Coughlin identifies five abilities that turn-taking
entails: 1) knowing how to signal that one wants to speak (e.g. by leaning forward, looking at
the current speaker); 2) recognizing the right mome nt to get a turn; 3) the ability to exploit
one’s turn properly and relate smoothly to what has been said; 4) the ability to recognize
interlocutors’ signals or desire to speak and final ly, 5) the ability to acknowledge
interlocutors’ signals and let them take turn (Coug hlin). Cook presents simple expressions
suitable for individual stages. For taking a turn h e suggests “Yes but”, “Well yes but”,
“Surely…”. The speaker wishing to hold a turn can use fillers such as “er”, “uhm”, “you
know”, “sort of”, “I mean” to these ends. The curre nt speaker can also assist the other
participant by passing a turn on him, e.g. “What do you think?”, “Would you agree?”, tag
questions “isn’t it?”, etc. For learning/ imitating visual and other aspects that accompany
turn-taking (e.g. changes in voice quality, elongat ion of a syllable, signals of face, body),
Cook recommends, as one of the alternatives, observ ing native speaker interaction (118). In
his list of examples Cook also includes “pre-sequen ce” (e.g. “Oh, I wanted to ask you… ”,
“Listen”), “repair” (e.g. self-repair: “What I real ly meant was…”) and “upshot” (e.g. “What
are you getting at?”).

– 28 – Reacting appropriately
In speech certain relations between neighbouring ut terances can be identified. There are
usually sequences of two or more utterances, in whi ch the second or following utterance is
the response to the preceding one. The utterances i n this sequence are labelled “adjacency
pair” (Hedge 267). Examples of these can be a greeting that requires a greeting in response, a
question followed by an answer, an invitation follo wed by an acceptance, etc. Learners
should be prepared to react in such sequences in a socially appropriate way, knowing what an
acceptable response might look like.

Conversation topics
Learners are expected to be able to talk about a ra nge of common conversational topics. That
presupposes practice of introducing and maintaining topics throughout a conversation. Since
it is not exceptional during an informal encounter to touch more than one topic, learners
should also be capable of shifting to another subje ct.

2.6 Negotiation of meaning

There are undoubtedly more aspects to interaction t han these mentioned in the previous
section. Nunan reviews the situation as follows:

“In most conversations there is a content of the di scourse, but in addition, there is a meta-
discourse, a conversation about the conversation, through which the interlocutors
negotiate the meaning and manage the conversation, ensuring that who says what about
whom and when happens smoothly (227).”

The quotation implies that interaction involves neg otiation of meaning. The notion and
process of “negotiation” will constitute the main f ocus of the subsequent section.

In interaction it is beneficial if participants, ap art from having a sufficient degree of language
knowledge and skills, also make good communicators. It means that they can express
intended meanings in a way that is comprehensible t o their interlocutors. In order to make a
good communicator, a speaker has to possess/ develo p negotiation skills. Interaction does not
usually proceed as a smooth exchange of message bet ween a speaker and a listener. During
interaction different problems may arise, from misu nderstandings or wrong interpretation to
the lack of grammatical or lexical knowledge. There fore it is necessary for a speaker to be
able to employ various means and strategies to make the intended meaning clear. He needs to

– 29 – be able to convey the meaning intelligibly so that listeners can make sense of it. Bygate
interprets the term “negotiation of meaning” in the sense of making oneself understood.
However, understanding should be achieved “on both sides”, the speaker’s as well as the
listener’s. The term “convergence” is presented by Widdowson to refer to mutual understanding,
which is more desirable in an interaction than “ind ividual understanding” (Bygate 29).

Spoken interaction, as opposed to the written form, is to a great extent affected by the
physical presence of a listener. What a speaker say s and how it is communicated is, in fact,
influenced by the listener’s reaction. In written l anguage, a writer cannot check the reader’s
understanding and vice versa, the reader does not h ave the chance of asking the writer for
clarification. In case of speaking, it is the speak er who should ensure understanding. The
speaker uses two ways to do so (Bygate 29). Firstly , he decides on the appropriate level of
explicitness in his speech according to whom he is talking. And secondly, he makes use of
“procedures for ensuring understanding” (29). These two ways will now be considered in turn.

The speaker, as was already noted in the previous p aragraph, modifies his message according
to who his listener is. It means that he chooses th e language he will use on the grounds of
knowledge he shares with the listener. The speaker uses a certain level of explicitness when
talking to a close friend, and a very different lev el when talking to a stranger. The closer the
relationship between the participants of conversati on the lower level of explicitness is
needed. In other words, to ensure understanding whe n talking to a stranger speakers prefer to
say more, to state their message in more detail, i. e. to be more explicit. When talking to a
close person, there is no need for speakers to stat e or repeat something that the listener
already knows. In this case, the speaker may be les s explicit. In fact, he has to be less explicit
if he does not want his listener to feel bored or c onfused. Thus the speaker, throughout the
conversation, makes estimates of how explicit he sh ould be in order to secure mutual
understanding. In relation to the first aspect of n egotiation of meaning, a reference to Grice’s 4
“cooperative principle of quantity” is made (Bygate 31). The principle is stated as follows:
“Make your contribution just as informative as requ ired” (Grice 1975).

4 Grice stated the “Cooperative principle” comprisin g “four maxims” (1975). By observing the four maxim s,
including the maxim of quantity, quality, relation and manner, the speaker may ensure the “smooth flow ” of
interaction.

– 30 – The other way to secure understanding is to employ “negotiation procedures” (Bygate 32).
This does not apply only to speakers, but to all pa rticipants of an interaction. It may happen,
and it often does, that a speaker/ learner lacks th e knowledge of a word or a structure he
would need to use. In this case, the ability to exp ress the intended meaning in another way
using different language is immensely helpful. It m ay include, for example, a paraphrase, a
description or definition of an object or phenomeno n for which there is no word at the
speaker’s disposal, etc.

As the interaction unfolds, participants have to co ntinually adjust their speech according to
the immediate feedback so as to maintain the conver sation in progress. At this point, learners
in position of current listeners appreciate the kno wledge of phrases and expressions suitable
for asking for explanation, clarification, indicati ng agreement, incomprehension, etc.
Speakers are also in need of appropriate language. For in order to be comprehensible, they
are likely to be providing clarification, giving ex amples, using paraphrases, etc. (Hedge 266).

With language learners the ability to negotiate the meaning, in most cases, does not develop
“on its own”. If learners are to be effective speak ers, they need to handle various difficulties
which spoken interaction necessarily entails. There fore it is advisable for learners to become
acquainted with language appropriate for these purp oses as early as possible. Teachers may,
or possibly should, incorporate in their lessons ac tivities in which students have the
opportunity to practise the language and “strategie s” suitable for dealing with unexpected
problems or situations arising from the nature of s poken interaction.

– 31 – Chapter 3
CATEGORIZING SPOKEN INTERACTION,
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

In the previous chapter the features of spoken inte raction were described. It was also outlined
what skills and knowledge a speaker/ learner has to develop in order to become a
“competent” participant of interaction. Chapter 3 d eals with spoken interaction in terms of
categories that may be distinguished. Individual ty pes are presented and briefly
characterized. In the second part of the chapter an insight into strategies that learners may
exploit to achieve their communicative “intentions” is provided.

3.1 Categories of spoken interaction

In terms of their function spoken interactions can be roughly divided into two broad
categories. These are described as interactional and transactional (Brown and Yule 23,
Nunan 228). Interactions falling within the former category are carried out in order to build
and maintain relationships. In the latter category messages are transmitted in order to convey
information, get something or get something done. N evertheless, there may be features of
interactional as well as transactional language ide ntified in every interaction (Nunan 228).

It has been recognized that speakers tend to give t heir messages certain “shape”. In
organizing their speech, they usually follow a more or less fixed pattern that is associated
with a particular message type. These patterns were labelled as “routines” (e.g. Widdowson
1983) (Bygate 22). Bygate suggests applying the not ion of routines to conversation analysis.
Routines are characterized as conventional (and the refore predictable) ways of presenting
information (Bygate 23). Two kinds of routines may be discerned: information routines
(corresponding to Nunan’s transactional category) a nd interactional routines (coinciding
with the interactional/ social category) (Nunan 228 ).

All the following instances of spoken interaction, e.g. telling a joke, giving an instruction,
describing someone or something, giving an explanat ion, belong to the category of
information routines . The term “information routines” refers to “freque ntly recurring types
of information structures” (Bygate 23). They may be either expository or evaluative in their

– 32 – nature. Narration, description and instruction cons titute main types of expository routines
(Brown and Yule 37-53). Evaluative routines, which entail reasoning and drawing
conclusions, may be represented by explanation, pre diction and justification (Bygate 24).

In considering interaction routines , the content of a message is not as important as t he kinds
of turns and the sequence in which they typically o ccur in a particular situation. The
examples of interaction routines are e.g. service e ncounters, casual encounters, interviews,
telephone conversations, conversations at parties, lessons, etc. (Bygate 25). All these
situations are organized in more or less fixed ways .

Bygate’s concept of routines was redesigned by Nuna n. Rather than distinguishing
informational and interactional “kind of situation/ routine”, Nunan proposes that it would be
more preferable to view these as two different dime nsions of interaction. In author’s words,
“the expository and evaluative subroutines are feat ures of service and social interactions”
(Nunan 229). He expressed his idea in a grid, in wh ich the relation between functions and
situations are represented graphically (see Table 3 .1).

___________________________________________________ _____________________________
Information

Expository Evaluative Negotiation of meaning
narrate describe explain justify management of inte raction
instruct compare predict decide

Interaction
S
E Job interview
R
V Booking a restaurant
I
C Buying stamps
E
Enrolling in school, etc.
S
O Dinner party
C
I Coffee break
A
L
___________________________________________________ ________________________
Table 3.1 (Nunan 230)

– 33 – The notion of routines appears to be quite favourab le for speakers as they facilitate
communication and also contribute to the smooth pro gress of interaction. By following these
patterns the interaction becomes more predictable. Learners, in their contact with the
language, may build the stock of set phrases or pat terns that help them engage in an
interaction and also orientate themselves in the gi ven situation.

3.2 Concept of genre

Genre theory offers still another way of viewing sp oken discourse. It has been suggested that
different types of spoken interaction can be distin guished on the grounds of their structure
and grammatical items which tend to reappear in the m. To clarify the concept of genre,
Nunan uses the following definition:

“A genre is a staged, purposeful, socially-construc ted communicative event. Such events
generally result in spoken and written texts that c an be differentiated according to their
generic structure and grammatical features.” (230)

In other words, the overall purpose of interaction can be associated with a particular
structure. It implies that different “speaking situ ations” have their distinctive, and thus
predictable arrangement. Individual genres include e.g. informal conversations, farewell
speeches, service encounters, business presentation s, etc. (Hedge 265).

Genres which have received presumably the greatest attention are the genres of conversation
and narrative. Hedge suggests using a structure of an oral narrative as a framework for creating
stories and storytelling activities. In this way le arners might get practice in structuring their
speech, linking the parts of a narrative, expressin g evaluation, result etc. (265).

3.3 Communication strategies

It is not uncommon for learners to find themselves in a situation in which they wish to (or are
supposed to) communicate something but lack the app ropriate words or structures at their
disposal. This is quite frequent, especially in ear lier stages of learning. Indeed, it is not
possible for learners to know everything, moreover, they are not expected so. However, they
need to be able to deal with a problem in communica tion as soon as it arises. In their
expression, learners are not as limited as they mig ht appear. The key to dealing with such

– 34 – “unexpected obstacles” in communication is fosterin g students’ strategic competence.
Mariani refers to strategic competence as “the abil ity to solve communication problems
despite an inadequate command of the linguistic and sociocultural code.” He maintains that
fostering this ability contributes to the developme nt of the overall communicative
competence (Mariani).

There have been studies conducted into the field of oral communication, particularly in the
ways which learners use to compensate for communica tion difficulties. Faerch and Kasper
(223) describe two major types of such compensatory strategies. Within each type several
subcategories may be distinguished (see Table 3.2).

Achievement strategies: Redu ction strategies:
Guessing strategies Avoidance strategies
Paraphrase strategies
Cooperative strategies

Table 3.2: Communication strategies

Both achievement and reduction strategies help to f ind “a way round” a problem in
communication. However, each type of strategies see ks help in a different way. This is
immediately apparent from their labels. If a learne r decides to use an achievement strategy ,
he will try to substitute for the word or structure he lacks by using an alternative term or
phrase. The intended meaning is communicated. But h e may also resort to using a reduction
strategy . It is quite common, especially if he is not able to find a substitute. Thus he reduces
his message in order to communicate at least a part of it or he may abandon it completely
(Coughlin). Individual types within the scope of th e two main groups of strategies will now
be described in more detail.

3.3.1 Achievement strategies
The first type mentioned in this group comprises guessing strategies . In exploiting these, a
learner searches for a word he may use as a substit ute for a word or structure he lacks or is
not sure of (Bygate 44). In doing this, he has more options. He may simply borrow a word
from his mother tongue, hoping that his partner wil l perhaps be familiar with it.
Alternatively, he may try to literally translate a mother-tongue word or “invent” a target-

– 35 – language word on his own. These “processes” should be based on the knowledge of the target
language so that the interlocutor would have a chan ce of “decoding” the intended meaning.
The last option is to “foreignize” a mother-tongue word (Mariani). It means to pronounce it
as if it was a part of target-language lexis, or ev en adjust its form to “suit” the morphological
features of English.

Paraphrase strategy involves an “active” approach to deficiencies in a learner’s
communicative competence. A learner in facing a dif ficulty tries to express the idea for
which he lacks “resources” in an alternative way. B asically, he can exploit one of the two
possible options. These include circumlocution and a lexical substitution strategy (Bygate
44). If a learner chooses the former option, he wil l attempt producing some sort of a
definition or explanation to make his idea clearer for the interlocutor. If he opts for the latter
alternative, he will be searching for a word of a s imilar meaning to the intended one, or
conversely a negated antonym (e.g. not dead instead of alive ). He may also use a word
denoting a more general concept, so-called “hyperon ym” or “superordinate word” (e.g.
flower instead of daffodil ). Mariani points out possible dangers of overusin g this strategy.
“Generalizing implies a disregard for restrictions on word meaning and word usage”,
therefore it should not be especially encouraged (M ariani).

The last type of achievement strategy to be describ ed is a cooperative strategy . In using this
strategy, a learner appeals for help from his inter locutor. He may explicitly ask for a
translation of a word or for providing a necessary grammatical structure. This kind of
communication strategy coincides with the leaning s trategy mentioned by Allwright and
Bailey. It is labelled as “appeal for assistance” and defined as follows: “spontaneously
asking another for the correct term or structure, o r for help in solving a problem” (142). In
order to obtain requested answer, gestures may also be exploited (Hedge 266).

3.3.2 Reduction strategies
In following reduction strategies, a learner gives up communicating a part, sometimes a
whole of his message. In other words, he reduces hi s communicative aims so that the
conveyed message would fit his scope of knowledge. Faerch and Kasper (52) speak of
avoidance behaviour or avoidance strategies . A learner avoids the possible problem by
changing the “direction” of conversation or complet e restraining from a conversation. A
possible problem may concern the wish to avoid a pa rticular grammatical structure or item

– 36 – which the learner finds difficult. But most frequen tly, learners try to avoid complications
caused by the lack of language (vocabulary and stru ctures). In this case, they usually
“sacrifice” a part of the message or they may even become silent. Mariani identifies the areas
which may be affected by the use of reduction strat egies (Mariani):

• Content (topic avoidance, message abandonment, meaning rep lacement)
• Modality (e.g. politeness markers)
• Speech acts

Figure 3.3: Areas affected by the use of reduction strategies

Apart from compensating for problems in expression by using the strategies outlined above, a
learner has to deal with other aspects of communica tion. For instance, he needs to be able to
manage the interaction in a way that allows him to gain some “thinking time” to retrieve
suitable vocabulary items and grammatical structure s, to assemble an appropriate response,
etc. In order to cope with communication demands of this kind, the learner can utilize
strategies offered by Bygate. He suggests repeating a part of the previous utterance before
providing one’s own. In his response the learner ma y also exploit some of the expressions
and structures the interlocutor has just used (48). Learners, especially in earlier stages of their
learning, are usually not accustomed to speaking at greater length. Bradwell remarks that the
inability to speak at greater length is a feature o f many second language speakers (Bradwell).
One way of solving this “deficiency” is to encourag e the interlocutor (ideally a native
speaker) to continue speaking by showing interest e .g. nodding in agreement. Another way to
alleviate some of the communication “pressure” is t o address questions to their interlocutors
(Bygate 48).

Teachers can improve their understanding of the way students follow in their learning by
observing students’ attempts to manage communicatio n difficulties. Moreover, the use of
communication strategies, which will be frequent es pecially in fluency focused activities, may
reveal items which are problematic with learners. H edge puts the question of whether or not
the communication strategies can be taught. In any case, she concludes, teachers should
display positive attitudes to using them and encour age mainly the use of achievement
strategies (266).

– 37 – Chapter 4
THE NATURE OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION

The first part of Chapter 4 is concerned with exami ning the nature of classroom interaction in
relation to the current demands that are made on la nguage learners. The comparison of
traditional teacher-learner interaction with casual conversation is undertaken. The attention is
subsequently focused on the notion of instructional conversation and implications for its use
in language classrooms.

4.1 The “traditional” pattern of classroom interact ion

If learners are expected to use the language in rea l-life encounters for its real purpose, that is,
to communicate, it is quite obvious that in the fir st place opportunities will be needed for them
to learn how to do so. For the majority of learners the setting for language learning is
represented by a language classroom. A classroom as a “pedagogical environment” has its
own distinctive features. Traditionally, a classroo m is defined as a formal, institutional setting
with an asymmetrical relationship among participant s as far as the speaking rights are
concerned (Šimoník 24). The question to be answered is how these characteristics of a
classroom as a setting correspond to the nature of interactions that should be accommodated
there. According to the assumption noted above, lea rners should learn to use the language to
communicate and interact with others. Not surprisin gly, doubts have emerged as to how the
nature of classroom interaction compares to the nat ure of what learners are supposed to learn.
This very issue will now be the object of examinati on.

The first step of the examination will be to detect whether the nature of classroom interaction
differs from, or possibly shares some characteristi cs of, the discourse learners should be
involved in. In order to do so, the features of bot h kinds of interactions will be summarized.
Subsequently, the differences and/ or similarities between classroom interaction and casual
“talk” will be identified. The extract below should exemplify a “usual” pattern of teacher-
learner(s) interaction:

– 38 – T: 5 The other day I went shopping and I bought some ne w clothes.
What did I buy? Try to find out! Ask me: Did yo u buy…?
A: Did you buy a hat?
T: No, I didn’t. I never wear a hat!
B: Did you buy a coat?
T: Yes, I did. A very nice one. But rather expensive!
C: Did you buy a shirt?
T: A shirt? Yes. In fact I bought three! (etc.) Now, all of you, write
down three things you bought… Good! Are you ready? Let’s go on.
D, you start. Did you buy a pair of shoes?
D: No, I didn’t.
E: Did you buy… ? (etc.)
Extract 4.1(Byrne 1)

The same or very similar kinds of interaction can b e fairly frequently found in language
classrooms. In his work Thornbury comments on typic al features of teacher-learner(s)
communication. Among positive features of such inte ractions there is quite high participation
on the part of learners and the “scaffolding” of in struction the teacher provides through his
talk (2). However, his comments are also aimed at t he deficiencies, especially the complete
control over the content and management of the exch ange that the teacher exercises (2).
Furthermore, most of teacher-learner interactions, as Nunan points out, take the form of IRF
sequences (Nunan) (see below), which does not corre spond to the organization of turns in a
casual conversation.

T: …What did I buy? Try to find out!
Ask me: Did you buy… ? Initiate
A: Did you buy a hat? Respond
T: No, I didn’t. I never wear a hat! Follow-up

Figure 4.2: The exampl e of IRF sequence

The conclusions reported by studies 6 of teacher-learner interaction are not really enco uraging.
They suggest that teacher-learner interaction is in the vast majority of cases led and
dominated by a teacher (Thornbury 2). There are res tricted opportunities for learners to

5 “T” stands for the teacher, “A”- “E” for individua l learners.
6 E.g. Nunan 1987, Sinclair and Brazil 1982, Thornbu ry 2002.

– 39 – engage in the classroom discourse. These result fro m the nature of “traditional” teacher-
learner relationship 7 (Šimoník 25). Nunan reports that clear differences have been observed
between classroom interaction and interaction in na tural setting, i.e. outside the classroom.
The differences concern “the patterns of interactio n, language functions and types of teacher
questions” (Nunan).

4.2 The features of teacher-learner interaction

The characteristics of casual conversation and teac her-learner interaction (in its traditional
form) are displayed and contrasted below (see Table 4.3) (Thornbury 3). Classroom
interaction is described as product-oriented in the sense that it aims to achieve a certain
pedagogical goal. Casual talk, on the contrary, ari ses more often from the need to establish or
maintain relationships. Conversation, as it is asse ssed rather in terms of the quality of the
conversational process itself than its outcome, is characterized as process-oriented (3).

Table 4.3: The characteristics of traditional teach er-learner interaction
and casual conversation (Thornbury 3)

7Gavora summarizes the rules by which the traditiona l teacher-learner interaction is governed: The teac her has
the right to speak whenever he wishes to, to interr upt a learner, to speak with whom he wishes to (an individual,
a group), to choose the topic of communication, etc . The learner has the right to speak only when he i s asked to,
to speak only with a person allotted, to speak only about a topic assigned, etc. (Šimoník 25). Teacher-learner interaction Conversation
product-oriented process-oriented
transactional interactional
asymmetrical symmetrical
teacher-led jointly constructed
topicalization by teacher topicalization shared
display questions referential questions
IRF sequences predominate adjacency pairs; “chat-an d-
chunk”
turns nominated turns self-selected
other repair self repair
low contingency high contingency

– 40 – Classroom interaction is transactional in its nature, for its aim is to transmit informat ion, or
better to say, “subject-matter knowledge” from a te acher to learners. This feature is reflected in
the asymmetrical relationship of its participants where a teacher assumes the ro le of authority.
His position entitles him to demand discipline, ask questions and nominate learners to answer,
provide evaluation of learners’ performance etc. In conversation, where the relationship is
symmetrical, participants are free to take turns an d nominate topics of their own. Unlike
classroom interaction with IRF exchanges , conversation consists mostly of “chat-and-chunk”
sequences. Classroom talk contains a high percentag e of display questions as opposed to
referential questions which prevail in conversation . If a problem (e.g. error, misunderstanding)
occurs in a conversation, a speaker himself devotes effort to repair it. While in a classroom
environment, it is the teacher who uses the initiat ive in doing so. Eventually, there is a low level
of contingency in classroom interaction, i.e. classroom talk is n ot set within the experiential
world (including the here-and-now context), it does not raise expectations for what will happen
next (Thornbury 4). The opposite can be said of cas ual conversation.

Unfortunately, there are very few features in class room talk, apart from being real-time
spoken interaction, that resemble the nature of cas ual conversation. Thornbury therefore
concludes that it is unlikely that participation in this kind of interaction, which according to
research evidence tend to prevail in language class rooms, can prepare learners for the
interactions they will experience outside the class room (4). Nevertheless, it would be unsound
to claim that all talk taking place in the classroo m is of the kind exemplified in the extract
above. Besides elicitation there is undoubtedly a g reater diversity in the patterns of classroom
interaction. Optimistic claims can be heard as far as the opportunities for involving in
“meaningful conversation” in a classroom setting ar e concerned (Nunan). Thornbury remarks
that it is not only possible but highly desirable t o incorporate conversation into language
lessons. In addition, he mentions a possibility of organizing classroom discourse “along more
conversational lines,” following the notion of “ins tructional conversation” (6).

4.3 The notion of “instructional conversation”

In order to clarify the notion of “instructional co nversation”, which was introduced by Tharp
and Gallimore, it would be relevant to consider som e conclusions of socio-cultural learning
theory on which the notion is based. Socio-cultural theory holds that knowledge, knowledge
of language not excepting, “arises from activities in particular contexts of use” (Thornbury 6).

– 41 – Learning is viewed as a social rather than individu al phenomenon. In the process of learning,
a child (or a learner) goes through several stages 8. The stage of “assisted performance”
preceding that of unassisted, independent acting is the crucial point in socio-cultural
conception of learning (Tharp and Gallimore). In la nguage learning, one of the ways in which
such assistance can be provided is by the means of “verbal scaffolding” (Thornbury 6). In
general, scaffolding is “what a teacher does when w orking with a student to solve a problem,
carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts. As a
psychological construct, it refers to the interacti on between the knowledge and skills of
teacher and student” (Flick). According to Scrivene r, scaffolding refers to “the way a
competent language speaker helps a less competent o ne to communicate by both encouraging
and providing possible elements of the conversation ” (Scrivener 162). Scrivener offers the
ways in which teachers may “scaffold” their learner s’ speech:
Table 4.4: Scaffolding techniques (Scrivener 162)

It has been argued that conversation provides a nat ural context for verbal scaffolding
(Thornbury 7). (Talk between parents and their chil dren may serve as satisfactory evidence
for the preceding argument.) It has been suggested that instructional talk which is based on
conversation (therefore containing conversational f eatures) appears to be more effective for
learning a language than the typical pattern of tea cher-learner interaction (7). This claim is
supported by an important feature conversation has, i.e. the contingency. In conversation the

8 The concept of developmental stages draws on Vygot sky’s “the Zone of Proximal Development” (Tharp and
Gallimore). Firstly, the learner in order to perfor m a particular task needs assistance of a more comp etent
individual (“The Four Stages of the ZPD”). This sta ge is described as other-regulation . Gradually, the child
(learner) is more and more able to operate on his o wn, and complete the task without assistance, i.e.
independently. He reaches the stage of self-regulation . Scaffolding techniques
• showing interest and agreeing: nodding, “uh-uh”, ey e contact, “yes”, etc.;
• concisely asking for clarification of unclear infor mation, e.g. repeating an unclear word;
• encouragement echo: repeating the last word (perhap s with questioning intonation) in order
to encourage the speaker to continue;
• echoing meaning: picking on a key element of meanin g and saying it back to the speaker,
e.g. “a foreign holiday”;
• asking conversation-oiling questions (ones that mai nly recap already stated information), e.g.
“Is it?” “Do you?” “Where was it?” etc.;
• unobtrusively giving a word or phrase that the spea ker is looking for;
• giving the correct pronunciation of words in replie s without drawing particular attention to it.

– 42 – new is naturally linked to what is already known. A nd since learning occurs “when the new is
embedded in the familiar”, the role of conversation as an ideal vehicle for instruction, and
thus as the medium for learning, is further promote d (7).

To clarify the notion of instructional conversation , the authors of the very concept comment:

“The concept itself may be a paradox: Instruction a nd conversation may appear contrary, the
former implying authority and planning, the latter equality and responsiveness. The task of
teaching is to resolve this paradox. To truly teach , one must converse; to truly converse is to
teach” (Tharp and Gallimore).

The quotation implies that it is within the teacher ’s competence to induce and promote
instructional conversations9. During such kind of “talk” a teacher should be mo re often
engaged in extending of the learner’s contribution (by elaborating, clarifying etc.) than in
commenting on its correctness. The context of such interaction should resemble one of
mutual cooperation (Tharp and Gallimore).

There are, at least, two reasons why it is benefici al for learners to involve in conversation.
Firstly, they develop their discourse competence. S econdly, by refining their discourse
competence they promote the development of their li nguistic competence (Ellis 1990 92). All
in all, they learn how to hold conversation, and at the same time they learn by the means of
conversation (Thornbury 9). Learning opportunities are further extended when learners are
allowed to “take control” over the conversational d iscourse. This does not mean that the
teacher is excluded from the interaction. His role of leading, encouraging and prompting
learners through the means of verbal (and instructi onal) scaffolding 10 is the crucial one
(Thornbury 9). By providing verbal scaffolds learne rs can take part in interactions that would
be otherwise beyond their language level (Flick).

In the classroom interaction of this type there are opportunities for the teacher to incorporate
form-focused instruction. Zhao remarks that “curren t attention in the research of Second
Language Acquisition has been given to the integrat ion of message-focused and form-
focused instruction. One way to accomplish this is through the incidental focus on form

9 For examples of the instructional conversation in practice, see Appendix IV, V.
10 According to van Lier, pedagogical scaffolding occ urs along three time scales: a) Macro: the design o f long-
term sequences of work or projects, with recurring tasks-with-variation over a protracted time period; b) Meso:
the design of individual tasks as consisting of a s eries of steps or activities that occur sequentiall y or in
collaborative construction; c) Micro: contingent in teractional processes of appropriation, stimulation , give-and-
take in conversation, collaborative dialogue (van L ier, L. “The Ecology of Language Learning”. UCDAVIS. ).

– 43 – during meaning-focused activities” (Zhao). Thus stu dents have the chance to practise
speaking and at the same time receive necessary lin guistic “assistance”. The value of such
“instructional detours 11 ” was supported also by research evidence. Studies into this field
provided evidence that incidental focus on form occ urred, even at a quite frequent rate, in
second language classes and that it facilitated sec ond language acquisition (Zhao). The
studies proved the high frequency of immediate upta ke in the so-called “focus on form
episodes” in teacher-learner and learner-learner in teractions. Therefore it has been gathered
that these “instructional detours” are effective fo r second language learning (Zhao). It may be
concluded that there are sound reasons, both motiva tional and linguistic, for modelling the
instruction on “real” interaction.

4.4 Conclusions

There is an immediate value, in my opinion, to enga ging learners in conversational discourse.
From the comparison of the features of conversation with a typical pattern of teacher-learner
exchange, as was undertaken above, it is evident th at participation in interaction of such kind
cannot prepare learners for interactions occurring outside the classroom. As to my experience,
the advantage of conversational discourse has been underestimated, and perhaps neglected, in
many Czech language classrooms. The contact of a te acher and learners is usually limited to
responding to teacher’s questions and subsequent co rrection on the part of the teacher. As a
result learners do not know how to manage interacti on and/ or negotiate meaning. They
usually lack the language needed for this purpose. This experience leads me to agree with
Ellis’s remark on the suitability of incorporating conversation into language lessons. By
involving learners in conversation their discourse competence will develop in line with their
linguistic competence, as I believe that the two of them are inextricably linked. In justifying
the worth of conversation, I would quote Thornbury, who in his comment aptly grasps the
core of this interaction: Learners “learn conversat ion, and they learn through conversation”
(Thornbury 9). I also appreciate the concept of ver bal (and instructional) scaffolding,
especially the fact of identifying this kind of “as sistance” in an explicit manner. It is possible
that teachers in prompting and encouraging their st udents’ speech provide such kind of verbal
and instructional scaffolds intuitively without bei ng fully aware of the concept of instructional
conversation.

11 The term “instructional detour” was introduced by Cazden (Thornbury 12).

– 44 –
It would be, however, advisable that teachers use s uch “instructional detours” prudently. If a
teacher exceeded the reasonable extent of intervent ion, he might “annoy” his students and
consequently deter them from participating in speak ing activities. The teacher should also pay
attention so as not to disrupt the direction of a t alk and convert it into the grammar practice.
As Thornbury comments, “there is a fine line betwee n intervention and interruption” (12).
There may be doubts about an overall contribution o f a conversation and instructional activity
in one. That applies especially to the students’ po int of view, as they may find it difficult in
final effect to appreciate either activity. It is, however, my belief that experienced teachers are
capable of exploiting opportunities to insert an in struction without seriously disrupting the
flow of conversation. The answer to this question c onsists in a teacher’s estimate of what is
the sensible proportion of the two elements/ activi ties, so that intervention would not change
into interruption.

My perception of the nature of classroom interactio n is consistent with Thornbury’s concept.
Expressed in his words it follows, “I have been arg uing for a kind of classroom culture that
not only promotes the speaking skill as an end in i tself, but serves in the development of the
language overall, including its grammar and vocabul ary” (15).

“Only by speaking a language can we ever hope to le arn it” (Thornbury 16).

– 45 – Chapter 5
TEACHING SPEAKING

The main concern of this chapter is to examine the ways in which oral skills can be taught
and learnt. These considerations also entail thinki ng about objectives to be aimed for. A brief
insight into the methodology of teaching speaking a s suggested by several influential
methodologists is provided. Together with their vie ws the frameworks of activities they
designed for developing speaking skill are displaye d and evaluated. But before focusing the
attention to the issues mentioned above, teachers’ convictions about the methodology of
teaching oral skills, and also teaching in general, need to be examined and clarified.

5.1 Teachers’ “beliefs” concerning teaching

There have been a variety of theories, approaches a nd views on how to teach language,
including teaching oral skills. The approaches and views on what is the best way in teaching
speaking have developed and changed over time as me thodologists came with new concepts
and justifications of one theory or another. For ma ny language teachers, however, the very
issue of the most effective way in teaching speakin g has still remained unresolved.

Whether or not teachers realize it, they base their teaching on the particular principle or
theory. “Their theory” about the nature of language learning/teaching does not have to be
stated explicitly. It can exist in a form of implic it beliefs (Ellis 1991 2). These beliefs are
manifested in the way teachers organize their teach ing. Traditionally, teachers choose not
only the content of a course and the sequence in wh ich the items are presented, but also the
way in which a language is taught. They assume that the methodology they have chosen will
correspond to the way learners process the availabl e language data, and so this will facilitate
and support their learning. In many instances, howe ver, this does not have to be the case
(Littlewood 1990 2). Thus it would be advisable, as Ellis recommends, that teachers explored
their convictions about language learning and teach ing, teaching speaking not excepting, and
made them explicit (1991 3). It is only when the co nvictions are made explicit that they are
open to critical examination, with the possibility to adjust, amend or perhaps replace them.
Ellis points out that teachers acting according to their implicit beliefs may not be able to give

– 46 – their methodology critical thought (1991 3). This m ay also result in their reluctance to
modifying and improving their teaching.

5.2 Approaches to teaching of spoken language

It may become apparent from the previous section th at there has been no universal approach
or methodology which would be generally accepted. I t is up to each teacher to decide on the
approach he will follow in his teaching. However, i n order to make a prudent decision he
should consider the options or “possibilities” care fully. There have been a variety of
approaches and views offered by methodologists and tried out in teaching practice. An
experienced teacher will not be surprised by the fa ct that some of them are contradictory or
even exclude one another. Such a case will be illus trated in the following paragraph.

In their section on speaking Rivers and Temperley c ontrast two approaches to teaching
spoken language. One of them is the progressive development view , the other the immediate
communication view (6). The former claims that “ability to speak the language derives from
the systematic study of grammar, phonology, and lex icon” (6). In fact, it states that only after
a learner has mastered the “theoretical part” of a language, he may attempt using his
knowledge more freely. This is the approach applied in grammar-translation and audio-lingual
courses. The latter view, on the contrary, holds th at “speaking skill is developed from the first
contact with the language” (6). Learners’ endeavour to communicate should be encouraged
from the very beginning. In expressing themselves, learners may use whatever means they
have at their disposal, from gestures and pointing to using words and simple phrases. In
relation to the latter approach Rivers and Temperle y give an example of “total immersion
experience of a foreigner in another culture” (6). In order to get the message across, he has to
make use of anything he has acquired of the languag e.

A “reasonable” and balanced approach to teaching sp eaking, as far as my point of view is
concerned, may lie in the middle position between t he two strong claims. Students should be
supported in using the language from early stages. In any case, their attempts at expressing
themselves should not be hindered and postponed unt il their command of language forms is
“accurate”. On the other hand, if learners do not f eel ready they should not be forced into
speaking. If a teacher repeatedly puts pressure on learners to speak, they may become
discouraged and distressed. As a result they may de velop reluctance to speaking and become

– 47 – unwilling to participate in speaking activities. Th ere should be enough sensitivity on the part
of a teacher to assess when it is suitable to ask l earners to speak, and what tasks at what stage
of learning he may require his learners to perform.

5.3 The methodology of teaching oral skills

The aim of this section will be to consider the vie ws on teaching spoken language which have
appeared to be most influential. The principles on which the writers based their methodology
will be evaluated. Subsequently, the division of ac tivities designed for developing oral skills
will be outlined and briefly discussed.

5.3.1 Littlewood’s methodology of teaching speaking
As one of the most influential proponents of the co mmunicative approach, Littlewood argues
for four different kinds of activities that are a r equisite for learning to speak. Within his
primary division there are two major categories, i. e. pre-communicative and communicative
activities. Pre-communicative activities are defined as follows:

“The teacher isolates specific elements of knowledg e or skill which compose
communicative ability, and provides the learners wi th opportunities to practise them
separately…. The aim is to provide learners with a fluent command of the linguistic
system, without actually requiring them to use this system for communicative purposes”
(Littlewood 1994 85).

In communicative activities a learner, according to Littlewood, “has to activa te and integrate
his pre-communicative knowledge and skills, in orde r to use them for communication of
meanings” (1994 86). While in performing the former type of activities, the learner is
involved in the training of “the part-skills of com munication”, in the latter type he practises
“the total skill of communication” (86).

The framework summarizing Littlewood’s methodology can be recorded as follows:

Figure 5.1 (Littlewood 86)

– 48 – Each of the two major categories (see Figure 5.1) i s further subdivided into two groups. Pre-
communicative tasks comprise purely structural activities where learners are engaged in
practising linguistic forms and structural operatio ns in order to build their linguistic
competence, which forms an important prerequisite f or the development of their
communicative ability (Littlewood 1994 9). In quasi-communicative activities the emphasis is
laid on the “link between the language forms and th eir potential functional meanings”
(Littlewood 86). In other words, students learn to recognize the relation between structures
and their communicative functions. The pre-communic ative activities, in fact, serve as
preparation for later stages, that is, participatio n in communicative activities. The main goal
of functional communication activities is quite pragmatic. The learner’s task is to
communicate meanings as effectively as he can with the resources he has at his disposal (20).
Social dimension of interaction is taken in account in the last and probably the most
demanding type of activities. In social interaction activities learners are expected not only to
communicate effectively but also to adjust their la nguage with regard to the given situation
and their interlocutors. Learners are encouraged to produce utterances which are not only
acceptable but also socially appropriate to the con text of situation (20).

However, the author himself acknowledges that, in f act, there is no clear-cut division among
the categories and subcategories he has delimited. The categories and subcategories
“represent differences of emphasis and orientation rather than distinct divisions (87).”

5.3.2 Rivers and Temperley’s concept
The primary distinction that Rivers and Temperley d raw is between skill-getting and skill-
using (see p.11). They make several comments on their co ncept of learning to communicate.
First, the two processes do not constitute successi ve stages but proceed continually “hand in
hand” (4). (Even learners at elementary level are c apable of expression, though limited.)
Second, between skill-getting and skill-using there is a gap. The transition between the two
processes is not automatic. In order to help learne rs in bridging the gap, skill-getting activities
should be “so designed as to be already pseudo-communication ” (5). Thus they approach and
gradually lead to spontaneous communication. The au thors, however, point out that for
successful interaction knowledge and intensive prac tice, i.e. skill-getting, are by no means
sufficient. For their speaking skill to develop, st udents are to be engaged in “actual,
purposeful conversational exchange with others” (5) . Moreover, if students are to become
efficient speakers it is necessary for them to over come their inhibitions about expressing

– 49 – themselves simplistically or “clumsily” (as it may often be the case when they are at
elementary level) (7).

For developing oral skills Rivers and Temperley sug gest three kinds of activities. The
activities relate to one another in the process of learning. They include oral practice for the
learning of grammar, structured interaction and autonomous interaction . These will now be
briefly described in turn.

Oral practice for the learning of grammar: Activities of this kind are designed to introduce
and practise the grammar of the language. They are expected to help learners “practise the use
of grammatical structures and apply the various fac ets of grammatical rules in possible
sentences” (Rivers and Temperley 110). The exercise s are viewed as having a preparatory
function for the use of structures in natural conve rsation.

Structured interaction: All that can be taught here is “how to construct th e appropriate
framework for the expression of meaning” (16). The main concern of this kind of activities is
to bridge the gap between knowledge of grammatical patterns and the ability of using them
for communication of meanings. For this purpose the activities are created so as to already be
“pseudo-communicative”. This entails communication “in which the content is structured by
the learning situation, rather than springing auton omously from the mind and emotions of the
student” (17). “We bridge the gap to true communica tion by encouraging the student to use
these structured practices for autonomous purposes from the early stages” (17).

Autonomous interaction: For the majority of learners autonomous interactio n in a foreign
language will presumably present a “challenge”. For learners to build confidence in their oral
skills, it is necessary to encourage them to expres s their own meanings “through all kinds of
familiar and unfamiliar recombinations of the langu age elements at their disposal” (46). If
learners are to succeed in autonomous interaction, they should be given opportunities to use
the foreign or second language “for the normal purp oses of language in relations with others”
(46). The authors present several categories of lan guage use which should provide natural
context for an interaction. The categories include, for example, establishing and maintaining
social relations, expressing one’s reactions, talki ng one’s way out of trouble, seeking and
giving information, conversing over the telephone, solving problems, discussing ideas and
acting out social roles (47).

– 50 – 5.3.3 Brumfit’s view: accuracy vs. fluency
Brumfit discusses the nature and basic polarity of accuracy and fluency work in language
learning and teaching. Firstly, he maintains that t he distinction between accuracy and fluency
is essentially a methodological one rather than psy chological or linguistic (Brumfit 52).
Secondly, he assumes that the concept may be releva nt to considering how much time in which
stage of learning is to be allotted to various type s of activity. Several points are made by the
author to clarify the distinction. It is acknowledg ed that “the distinction is not one between what
is good and bad in language teaching” (Brumfit 52). The term accuracy is used in this context to
refer to “a focus of the learner/ user on formal fa ctors or issues of appropriacy, which will be
evaluated for their observed characteristics” (52). The term may relate to speaking and listening
as well as to reading or writing. Brumfit argues th at accuracy work has its definite place in
language teaching. Nevertheless, it would not be de sirable if accuracy focused activities were
used in an exceeding manner, as it might hinder the language development (52).

The definition of fluency is not as unproblematic a s that of accuracy. In methodological
terms fluency work is contrasted with accuracy acti vities. However, in characteristics of its
nature there are allusions to the linguistic concep tion of the term. Fillmore discusses fluency
exclusively in relation to productive skills (Fillm ore 93). He distinguishes four different
kinds of fluency 12 which in turn refer to speed and continuity, coher ence, context-sensitivity,
and creativity in language use (Fillmore 93). Fillm ore’s account emphasizes an apparent link
between language and the learner’s knowledge of the world in the development of fluency
(Brumfit 55). Fluency is regarded to be “a natural language use, whether or not it results in
native-speaker-like language comprehension or produ ction” (Brumfit 56). In fluency focused
activities the language is always a means to an end . The content of the “talk”, though relating
to the particular task, should be determined by the speaker or writer. In speech processes
such as paraphrasing, reorganising, improvisation a nd repair will frequently appear as the
speaker needs to adjust his speech to the aspects o f a certain situation (56). Learners’ errors
in fluency activities should be treated with carefu l consideration. Correction, if any takes
place at all, should be kept for later for it may d istract the learner’s attention and deter him
from further attempts at speaking production.

12 Among different kinds of fluency Fillmore includes “the ability to fill time with talk”, where the qu ality of the
talk is of lesser importance than its quantity. “Th e ability to talk in coherent, reasoned and semanti cally dense
sentences” constitutes the second kind. The third o ne is “the ability to have appropriate things to sa y in a wide
range of contexts”. Eventually, he mentions the abi lity to be “creative and imaginative in … language use”
which entails punning, creating metaphors and varyi ng styles. (Fillmore 93)

– 51 – In a language course a balance between the two type s of activity, accuracy and fluency 13 ,
should be attained. Brumfit argues for a “higher pr oportion” of accuracy work at the
beginning of the course. In his view, beginners may need to practise the use of grammatical
structures, vocabulary and features of pronunciatio n in a more controlled way. At the same
time, however, they should be more and more often a llowed to engage in fluency-based tasks
(Brumfit 50, 131). They should be provided with opp ortunities to use their resources in
fluency work as this is what stimulates real langua ge use (Hedge 283).

5.3.4 Hedge’s view on speaking practice
In her account Hedge refers to the methodologists m entioned above. She conforms to the
division of activities, as suggested by them, into accuracy and fluency work. Although the
writers use different labels for the kinds of activ ities, the bases of their frameworks are very
similar. The writers including Hedge argue for inco rporating a preparatory stage in a language
course. Its purpose is to equip learners with the n ecessary resources they will need in the
successive stage for communicating and interacting with others. The accuracy work is,
according to Hedge, characterized by “a conscious f ocus on language and a high degree of
control over student output” (273). She formulates four demands that the accuracy practice
should fulfil in order to be meaningful (273-276):

/square4 Contextualized practice: It is helpful if learners perceive the relation be tween linguistic
forms and their communicative functions. This entai ls providing contexts in which the
particular structures usually occur.
/square4 Personalizing language: The second demand presupposes the personalizing of the language
in activities so that learners are able to convey t heir own ideas and opinions. It has been
argued that personalized practice makes language it ems more memorable (274).
/square4 Building awareness of the social use of language: Learners should develop sensitivity as
to what “kind” of language (i.e. a level of formali ty, politeness etc.) is appropriate in the
given situation. They need practice at least in ess ential features of this so that their speech
is acceptable and they are able to avoid possible o ffence.
/square4 Building confidence: The fourth demand forms a necessary prerequisite f or fluency work and
speaking in general. Confidence and willingness to take risks vs. reluctance to speak constitute

13 Brumfit maintains that accuracy will tend to be cl osely related to the syllabus, will tend to be teac her-
dominated and form-based. Fluency must be student-d ominated, meaning-based and relatively unpredictabl e
towards the syllabus (131).

– 52 – the theme of Chapter 7. The teacher may use the con text of accuracy practice for building
cohesiveness among his students and creating suppor tive atmosphere for classroom interaction.

In discussing fluency work, Hedge is concerned main ly with three types of activities, namely
discussion, role-play and “gap” activities. She con siders in turn possible contributions that the
three types of exercise can make for the developmen t of oral skills. Fluency work including
the mentioned activities will be the focus of the f ollowing chapter.

5.4 Conclusion

In general, methodologists propose two major kinds of activities to be included in a language
course. These are accuracy and fluency focused acti vities. Individual writers offer different
frameworks for language learning activities (see Li ttlewood’s division or Rivers and
Temperley’s framework above). In principle, however , they conform to the concept stated by
Brumfit (see p.54). Among the vast majority of meth odologists, including those mentioned in
this chapter, there is consensus as far as the nece ssity of accuracy based tasks at the beginning
of a course is concerned. They agree that beginners need to practice the features of language
in a more intensive and controlled way. As learners move “higher” in a course, they need to
use the resources they have acquired at lower stage s in meaningful fluency practice which,
according to Hedge (283), stimulates the actual lan guage use and development. This implies
that at the beginning of the course a greater amoun t of time should be devoted to accuracy
practice. As the course continues the mutual propor tion of activities is “reversed”, and
increasing time allocated in favour of fluency work .

In principle, my opinion is consistent with the con cept outlined above. Students need a kind of
basis, i.e. at least elementary grammar and vocabul ary, on which they can build. It is my
contention that fluency work should gradually be in corporated in lessons from the very
beginning of a course. Students are capable of expr ession even with very limited resources at
their disposal. Fluency work should also supply the meaning and a sense of practical use to
items presented and trained in accuracy-based tasks . In this way students’ motivation for
learning may be increased. Nevertheless, this is no t to say that at higher levels accuracy work
should be abandoned completely. In my view, accurac y practice should be included also at
later stages. Students’ linguistic competence needs to be further refined so that their language
development would not stagnate at a certain stage.

– 53 – Chapter 6
COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES

This chapter intends to outline and evaluate the co mmunicative or fluency focused activities
which methodologists suggested in their frameworks. In the past most attention appeared to
be devoted to the development of accuracy skills in cluding the examination and designing of
accuracy-based tasks. The focus on interaction acti vities is intentional as this very theme
should constitute the basis of this work. One of th e aims of this thesis is to explore
possibilities of how teachers may assist students i n learning to use a second or foreign
language for communication and interaction with oth ers. As was noted by Hedge (see p.51), it
is only through fluency activities that real langua ge use, i.e. communication, may be
stimulated. This accounts for the concern with this area of methodological work.

Different criteria may be applied to the classifica tion of fluency focused activities. They can
be grouped according to the topic, information rout ines, interaction routines, or in terms of
behavioural criteria (such as whether the student’s task is to draw something, make or arrange
something etc.) (Bygate 67). In this chapter a brie f description of the nature and aims of
communicative activities will be provided. The foll owing section will explore the frameworks
for fluency activities as suggested by different wr iters. In the subsequent part of Chapter 6
activities which have received an important place i n fluency practice will be discussed and
their contribution to the development of speaking s kill evaluated.

6.1 Communicative activities – definition and aims

People communicate when one of them has information (opinions, ideas, instructions, etc.)
that another does not have. “The aim of communicati ve activity in class is to get learners to
use the language they are learning to interact in r ealistic and meaningful ways, usually
involving exchanges of information or opinion” (Scr ivener 152). Thus in this kind of
activities the focus is on encouraging and enabling communication, rather than on accuracy of
linguistic forms that students produce. “The main a im for students is achieving successful
communication” (Scrivener 153). They should not be extremely “worried” about accurate use
of particular language items. The teacher’s role in communicative activities differs from his
role in other learning situations. If his main aim is getting his students to speak, he has to

– 54 – adapt his role in the class accordingly. It means t hat he reduces his participation to monitoring
discreetly and helping where necessary. He should a lso save his contributions including
correction for later. If the focus is on fluency co nstant correction would destroy the purpose of
the speaking activity (Harmer 2004 94). Among the t eacher’s roles in a fluency activity Byrne
ranks the role of stimulator, manager and consultan t (Byrne 13). Scrivener provides the
activity route map for fluency activities (see belo w). There are individual stages of an activity
described including the column for likely teacher i nvolvement.

Running a fluency activity

Stage Teacher involvement
1 Before the lesson: familiarize yourself
with the material and activity
2 In class: lead-in/prepare for the activity Teacher centre-stage
3 Set up the activity (or section of activity),
i.e. give instructions, make groupings, etc. Teacher centre-stage
4 Run the activity (or section): students do
the activity – maybe in pairs or small groups Teacher out of sight,
– while you monitor and help uninvolved
5 Close the activity (or section) and invite
feedback from the students Teacher centre-stage
6 Post-activity: do any appropriate
follow-on work ?
Table 6.1: Activity route map (Scrivener 161)

6.2 Categories of communicative activities

There is a slight variation among the categories of communicative activities within the
frameworks created by different writers. In this se ction the frameworks of fluency-oriented tasks
as suggested by certain well-known methodologists a nd at the same time proponents of the
communicative approach in ELT, namely Littlewood, H armer and Ur, will be briefly examined.

There are two categories of communicative activitie s in Littlewood’s framework. The first
category is labelled “functional communication acti vities” (Littlewood 22). An activity of this
kind is structured in such a way that the learner i n order to complete the task has “to

– 55 – overcome an information gap or solve a problem” (Li ttlewood 22). Activities engage learners
mainly in sharing and processing information. The f irst category of activities is subdivided in
four groups: a) sharing information with restricted cooperation; b) sharing information with
unrestricted cooperation; c) sharing and processing information; d) processing information. In
order to illustrate the nature of activities, examp les will now be given for each of the four groups.

a) Sharing information with restricted cooperation: Activities within this group is based
on the situation in which one student (or group) po ssesses information which the other
student (or group) has to discover (22). The “knowe r” is allowed to react only to
appropriate cues, usually a particular type of ques tions (e.g. yes/no questions) so that
the information is revealed gradually. Examples may include: Discovering sequences
or locations : A has pictures in a particular sequence, B’s task is to arrange his pictures
in the same sequence (25). Discovering missing information: each student in a pair has
an incomplete table, each has to elicit the missing information from the other (26).
b) Sharing information with unrestricted cooperation: The activities allow more
realistic pattern of interaction to develop. They a re based on visual information. The
information gap is ensured by the fact that student s must not see each other’s pictures
(29). Examples may be: Communicating models : both A and B have shapes (e.g.
pieces of Lego), A arranges his pieces in a particu lar shape, B’s task is to reproduce
A’s model by communicating with A (31). Following directions : both A and B
possess identical maps, only A knows the destinatio n (32).
c) Sharing and processing information: The activities within group c) add a further
dimension. Students are expected not only to share information, but also to discuss or
evaluate the information so as to come to the solut ion to a problem (33). E.g.: Pooling
information to solve a problem : A has a piece of information (train times from X to
Y), B has a compatible piece of information (train times from Y to Z), together they
have to reach a solution (e.g. the quickest journey from X to Z) (35).
d) Processing information: In the last of the four groups of activities stude nts have all
the relevant information at their disposal. Their t ask is to discuss and evaluate
information or facts in pairs or groups in order to agree on a decision or solve a
problem. Problem-solving tasks : e.g. placing items in the order of importance,
choosing and justifying the course of action for th e outlined problem-situation (36).

– 56 – The second major category of communicative tasks is “social interaction activities”. They
incorporate an additional dimension, that is, “a mo re clearly defined social context”
(Littlewood 1994 43). This means that now the learn er has to observe also the social
acceptability and appropriateness of the language h e produces. These activities should
simulate situations that may occur outside the clas sroom, “where language is not only a
functional instrument, but also a form of social be haviour” (43). The category comprises two
sets of activities. In the first of them social con text is represented by the classroom. Among
the activities within the classroom context the author ranks conversation or discussion
sessions and dialogues and role plays based on school experience . He also mentions the
suitability of using the foreign language as a teac hing medium and an instrument for
classroom management (45-46). The second set of act ivities involves simulation and role-
playing . Learners are asked to take on a specific role in a specific situation. Sometimes they
may act as themselves, in other cases they are supp osed to adopt a simulated identity (49).
The author grades the activities from easier ones t o more complicated, e.g. role-playing
controlled through cued dialogues : learners are prompted by turn-by-turn cues on rol e cards
(51); role-playing controlled through situation and goals : learners are given background
information and aims on role cards, they are to per form “drama-like” dialogue in a particular
situation (55); improvisation : unscripted dramatizations, learners are given ind ividual role
cards, but no aims (60).

Littlewood’s concept embraces almost all types of f luency activities that are used in the
current ELT practice. The other two authors mention ed at the beginning of the section work
with similar categories, however, the division or g rouping of activities in their frameworks
slightly differs.

Harmer’s division involves two major groups, “pract ice activities” and “communicative
activities”. What is somehow missing in Harmer’s co nception is a more or less firmly defined
principle on which the division is based. The divis ion itself may not satisfactorily account for
the difference in the nature of activities. The aim of activities in the first category is to “get
students to practise oral English” (Harmer 1991 92) . It includes oral drills, information gap
activities, games, personalisation and localisation and oral interactions . Examples of oral
interactions, personalisation and localisation will be given in order to clarify the nature of
such types of activities. Personalisation and local isation activities refer to “those stages of
practice where students use language they have rece ntly learnt to talk about themselves and

– 57 – their lives” (1991 102). The teacher’s role during such activities may be the one of prompting
students to use additional remarks and follow-up qu estions in order to make the interaction
more realistic (104). One of the examples offered b y Harmer is following (103):

S1: Have you been to the movies recently?
/ \
S2: Yes, actually. or No … no I haven’t.
↓ ↓
S1: What did you see? Really. Don’t you like films ?
↓ ↓
S2: Oh… I saw Born on the Yes, but I don’t have the time
4th of July . to go to the cinema.
↓ ↓
S1: Hadn’t you seen it before? Why?
It’s ancient!

Figure 6.2: An example of personalisation activity

Oral interaction activities are designed to “encour age practice of specific language in an
enjoyable and active way” (105). In an example titl ed “Find someone who” (105) each
student is given a card (see below). Students mingl e and ask each other questions concerning
the items on the card. However, they can ask their classmate only one question at a time.
When one of the students has a name for each item, the activity finishes.

FIND SOMEONE WHO

1 likes chocolate __________
2 often goes to the cinema __________
3 has three brothers __________
4 went to bed late last night __________
5 plays the guitar __________

Figure 6.3: An example of oral interaction activity

The second major category is labelled “communicativ e activities”. The activities within this
category should “provoke spoken communication betwe en students and/or between the
teacher and the students” (Harmer 122). The categor y comprises seven types of oral exercise:
reaching a consensus, relaying instructions, discus sion, communication games, problem
solving, talking about yourself, and simulation and role-play . The examples of the first type of
activity may include agreeing on ten objects to tak e on holiday or arguing about moral

– 58 – dilemmas with suggesting the best course of action for an outlined situation (123). In the
second type of activity the students’ task is to gi ve each other instructions. One group of
students builds a model from building bricks or pie ces of Lego. The model must not be seen
by the second group. In the following stage the ori ginal group has to instruct the other group
so that the other group can duplicate their model. Students may instruct each other also in a
sequence of physical exercise, certain mimes, a dan ce etc. (126). The types of activities
including discussion, role-play and simulation will be discussed in more detail in the
following sections.

Ur suggests a variety of interaction activities. Th e majority of them have already been
mentioned within the two preceding frameworks. Mor eover, she offers a range of activities
designed for group-work (1981, 2006). These are org anized into three categories:
brainstorming, organizing and compound activities . Within each category there are several
subtypes. Few examples will be presented for illust ration.
Brainstorming activities: Finding connections : between incongruous cues (words or
pictures); finding things in common; combining part s or elements to create a story (33 2006).
Ideas from a central theme : listing things with the same or similar qualities ; associations;
characteristics (e.g. things that can fly/float/jum p; things that have holes in etc.) (35).
Organizing activities: Putting in order : sequences of pictures; sentence-sequence (60).
Priorities : survival games, rating etc (67).
Compound activities: Composing letters (98); Surveys (111); Planning projects (112); etc.

The types of communicative activities, though organ ized in different ways, reappear in
individual frameworks. Most of the types have becom e a permanent part of the current
language teaching practice. It is up to the teacher to select from a wide range of
communicative activities the tasks which match best to his students’ needs. It is also left to the
teacher’s consideration whether he examines the act ivity in terms of the kinds of skills the
task helps to develop, as classification systems ar e not usually based on those criteria but
rather on external factors such as the theme or org anization of an activity.

– 59 – 6.3 Direct vs. indirect approach to teaching speaki ng

In relation to section 5.1 which discusses teachers ’ beliefs about language learning and
teaching, there is still another issue to be consid ered. In teaching spoken interaction there are,
at least according to Richards, two possible ways t o follow. These he has labelled “direct” and
“indirect approach” (Richards 76-77). Each of them has its potential advantages and
disadvantages. Again, it is left to each teacher’s careful consideration which approach he will
follow in his teaching. In implementing the indirec t approach, students will be engaged in
interaction through some kind of fluency work. Thei r conversational competence/ skills
should develop “peripherally” in the process of int eraction, without the teacher explicitly
presenting strategies for managing interaction or c ommunication “gambits 14 ” (see extract 6.1).
The opposite can be said of the direct approach whe re students are directly acquainted with
conversational strategies and conventions. The teac her takes them “through a programme of
awareness-raising and practice” (Hedge 271). The pr ogramme calls learners’ attention to
microskills, strategies and processes that fluent c onversation entails (Brown 276). Hedge
believes that even in early stages of learning, the teacher may explicitly supply some of the
simple strategies (271).

Asking for Information

You want to buy the things below. What would you sa y I’d like to know…
to the shop assistant? Use suitable phrases from th e list.
I’m interested in …
THE SHOP ASSISTANT YOU
Could you tell me…?
May I help you? electric typ ewriter – price?
( e.g. Yes, I’d like to know Do you know…?
how much this typewriter costs .)
Could you find out…?
What can I do for you? bicycle – how ma ny gears?
Could I ask…?
Yes? desk lamp – what kind of bulb
i t takes? Do you happen to
know…?
Are you looking for batteries – wh ere in the
something? supermark et?

Table 6.4: Asking for information (Keller and Warne r 7)

14 “Gambit”, as defined by Keller and Warner, is a wo rd or phrase which helps the speaker to express wha t he is
trying to convey. Gambits are used to introduce a t opic of conversation, to relate what the speaker sa ys to what
has been said before, to express agreement or disag reement etc. (4).

– 60 – The strategies may comprise the ways of initiating, sustaining and closing a conversation. It
may also prove useful to teach the language suitabl e for asking for clarification, repetition or
getting information, e.g. about a feature of langua ge (Hedge 271). In his list of conversation
microskills Richards agrees with Hedge on the items she has offered. However, he adds a few
more, e.g. strategies for repairing communication b reakdowns and problems of
comprehension; strategies for managing turn-taking; how to use conversational routines and
what style of speaking to choose for a particular o ccasion, from a casual and neutral to a more
formal style (Richards 79-80).

In reflecting on which approach to employ in their teaching, Hedge suggests that teachers take
the “common-sense” approach (272). They may incorpo rate a type of activities offered by
Keller and Warner (1988) or Nolasco and Arthur (198 7) in their lessons, and evaluate their
effect subsequently. In other words, whether or not students acquire and use in their speech
gambits presented in this way. To conclude, it woul d be advisable to take a middle position
and try to combine elements of both approaches, i.e . direct focus on features of conversation
and involvement in meaningful activities, in a sens ible proportion.

6.4 Types of communicative activities

In recent years, as is implied throughout the whole thesis, there has been a growing tendency
in language teaching to place an emphasis on foster ing students’ ability to communicate in a
foreign language. This very emphasis stems from inc reasing demands made on students in
terms of their communicative skills. As a response a great variety of activities under the label
of fluency focused practice appeared. The types of activities in the offer of fluency-based
tasks by different methodologists very often coinci de. The types that seem to have received a
significant place in fluency practice, as they recu r regularly, are discussion, role-play, and
information-gap activities. The activities, especia lly their contribution to the development of
communicative competence, will now be considered in turn.

6.4.1 Discussion
Discussion itself lends a natural way for “getting” learners to talk more freely. Although
discussion, or a conversation session, might be vie wed as a release from more “serious”
language work (Littlewood 1994 46), the opposite us ually proves to be the case.

– 61 – Communicative activities form one of the most impor tant and at the same time the most
challenging parts of a language course.

Discussion offers important opportunities to put th e resources acquired through more
controlled practice into action. Learners are encou raged to speak about a range of topics
including their preferences, opinions, interests, a nd experiences. In this way students see how
language may be used to express their “own” meaning s and ideas. If the discussion is to fulfil
its purpose, the teacher has to “restrain” to the r ole of co-communicator, perhaps a prompter
or guide. He should not take away learners’ respons ibility for sustaining the discussion
(Litlewood 47). Relating to Brown’s remark concerni ng almost total teacher’s control over the
interaction in class (276), it is important to allo w students to manage and sustain the flow of
conversation themselves. Students should be given o pportunities to practise the microskills
that form the part of oral communication competence . They should be involved in initiating
the talk, taking and holding turns, nominating topi cs of their own, shifting to another subject,
inviting comments etc. They are actually expected t o practise the strategies that are
indispensable in interpersonal communication. Hedge remarks that this is presumably “the
greatest advantage free discussion has over other t ypes of activity” (277). Besides the efficient
fluency practice and the development of “debating s kills” Ur sees other objectives that
discussion should aim for. Language is not usually used for its own sake, rather it is used as a
means to achieve an end. Ur comments that if there is no sensible objective provided, the
teacher cannot expect proper use of the language to appear (Ur 2006 3). Eventually, there is a
place for peer-teaching. The research evidence conf irmed that in spoken interaction students
provide “information source” for each other (Zhao). They learn from each other, helping one
another with words or structures needed to convey t heir thoughts. In addition, new
information and ideas arising from the discussion m ay contribute to learners’ overall
knowledge and “mould” their worldview.

There are at least two requirements for discussion to be successful (Ur 2006 4). The first is
full participation on the part of learners, as is i llustrated by Ur’s comment: “…a discussion
that works is primarily one in which as many studen ts as possible say as much as possible”
(3). Learners’ high motivation constitutes the othe r. Learners’ motivation to participate in
discussion, more precisely the extrinsic component of motivation, may be generated and
increased in some ways. One of the efficient ways i s the supplying of an interesting topic.
However, the topic is not all that is needed. In th e first place, as Ur points out, students need a

– 62 – reason to speak at all. “In short, students need a reason to speak more than they need
something to speak about; once they have such a rea son, however, the fact that the topic is
stimulating will make the whole discussion more int eresting” (6).

With regard to the first requirement of successful discussion, i.e. full participation, a careful
thought has to be given to its organization. If a t eacher does not want discussion to be
dominated by a few confident speakers with the rest of the class “sitting back” or preoccupied
with something else, it would be useful to plan the procedure beforehand. One of the possible
solutions, nowadays widely recommended, is to divid e students in groups. This organization
has its indisputable advantages. Ideally, if each m ember of a group contributes to the
discussion, the participation will increase and “ta lking time” will be fully exploited.
Moreover, this kind of organization makes speaking activities less stressful for students who
are shy of speaking in front of the full class. Tal king in “buzz groups”, as Harmer calls them,
give students a chance to think of ideas and how to formulate them before they are asked to
report to the class (Harmer 2001 272).

There are few useful tips offered by Scrivener (150 ) that should ensure smooth flow of discussion:

Frame the discussion well : It is helpful to find ways to follow naturally int o discussion at the beginning and
ways to close at the end. A brief focus on a pictur e or an article may serve as a lead-in.
Preparation time : Students definitely appreciate short quiet time bef ore the activity. They have the opportunity
to assemble their ideas, to consult a dictionary or to make few notes.
Do not interrupt the flow : It is advisable to avoid classroom management tech niques that could interfere with
the natural flow of the talk, e.g. learners having to put their hands up before they are allowed to sp eak.
Specific problems are more productive than general issues : It usually proves more productive and realistic to
set a specific, related problem than to provide a g eneral topic for students to discuss.
Buzz groups : If the whole-class discussion begins to “dry up”, a teacher may decide to split the class into “buzz
groups” of about four students. They may be asked t o summarize the discussion, to think of few interes ting
comments or questions to share with the whole class etc. Then the class is brought together again and continues
the discussion. The “buzz-group” stage may last onl y few minutes, but it may help to add “fresh” energ y into a
discussion.
Break the rules : It is not necessary to observe the rules all the t ime. Sometimes if the subject is “burning
strongly” or the teacher wants his students to spea k without preparation, he may decide to start the d iscussion
immediately.
Table 6.5: Tips for successful discussion (Scrivene r 150)

– 63 – Not only a well defined, engaging topic and thought ful organization form a sufficient basis for
successful discussion. What discussion needs as wel l is a structure or support of some kind.
Hedge suggests supporting discussion by information supplied by the teacher or textbook
(277). Resource materials usually base activities o n texts and accompanying pictures or
photographs. They serve as a “springboard” as they supply content and necessary language
items. However, it is the task that gives discussio n the purpose and direction. The task that
can be completed only through verbal communication provides learners with a reason to
speak (Ur 2006 24). In this way the task can make t he conversation more natural and also
generate learners’ motivation. The task may also re late to an article and pictures. It may
involve students in giving their opinions, stating their preferences, agreeing or disagreeing
with what they have read, thinking of an appropriat e solution to the given situation, etc. In the
same respect as the task is discussed by Ur, Hedge talks about setting a goal for the
discussion. The goal serves as support (e.g. studen ts in groups may be asked to reach an
agreement concerning a controversial issue) (Hedge 278). The goal and procedures involved
in attaining it (e.g. suggesting and comparing idea s, justifying them etc.) should provide a
stimulus for speaking and negotiating meaning with others.

Discussion may be divided into stages or “phased” w ith the help of instructions. As a
“climax” of the activity there may (or may not) be a reporting stage. Each group reports their
ideas to the class. However, reporting may be carri ed out in a more “considerate” way, by re-
forming of original groups. Hedge comments on the a dvantage of including the reporting
stage in discussion (277). In order to be able to r eport to others, learners need to follow
carefully the arguments of their own group. The ide a of group-work within discussion (or
another kind of activity), especially if there is a goal to be reached, corresponds well to one of
the general educational goals, primarily one of enc ouraging cooperative learning 15 . Thus the
procedure may be valuable not only in educational t erms but also in the context of students’
lives outside the classroom.

15 Cooperative learning is the kind of learning where “individuals are responsible within the group and
accountable to it” (Hedge 278). Each member is expe cted to participate in the common work of his group , with
members depending on one another for achieving an o utcome.

– 64 – 6.4.2 Role-play
Outside the classroom students will possibly need t o use language in a variety of situations
and contexts. The language that can be used within the constraints of a classroom is not likely
to be sufficient for encounters that may occur in t he “outside” world. Fortunately enough,
there are ways in which possibilities of communicat ive interaction in the classroom may be
extended. The ways that are nowadays widely encoura ged belong to the field of simulation.
Within this field especially techniques of role-pla ying have become quite popular. The term
“role-play” is used to refer to a broader continuum of activities, from memorised dialogues
and dialogues prompted by cues to improvisations. T he main criterion in classifying activities
is a degree of control a teacher (usually through d ifferent kinds of materials) exercises over
the activity (Littlewood 1994 50). In a narrower se nse, the term “role-play” denotes activities
where learners are asked to adopt a specific role a nd act accordingly in the given setting and
situation, using language suitable for this context . In Harmer’s words, “students “simulate” a
real-life encounter as if they were doing so in the real world, either as themselves or taking on
the role of a character different from themselves…” (Harmer 2001 274). The theme of role-
play may include anything from a simple situation, e.g. meeting a friend in the street or an
interview, to a more complex simulation with severa l stages, e.g. a meeting of school
committee solving a problem concerning misbehaviour or a television show. Students are
usually given information about their role, that is , who they are, what they think etc., on role
cards. They are free to choose what to say as long as it conforms to the given role, setting and
situation. At other times, they need not adopt a ro le but may act as themselves.

A role-play is usually performed in pairs or groups , with students creating the interaction
themselves on the basis on their roles and the imag inary setting. They are expected to behave
as real participants in the given situation. Studen ts act simultaneously without audience.
Occasionally volunteers may perform a particularly successful scene for the class. There are
several stages that can be identified in a role-pla y or simulation. Bygate distinguishes three
phases: supplying participants with necessary infor mation; proper problem-solving
discussions; and finally follow-up tasks (81). An e xample of a role-play is presented below.

Inviting a Friend to Dinner

For groups of up to ten pupils in pairs. (Cards 6-1 5).

Roles: Mike/Sally Crocker and Chris/Pam Overton, Claire De nnis and Peter North, Neil/Diana
Brown and Paul/Sara Evans etc.

– 65 – 1 In this role-play, pupils work in pairs. One pupil will phone up to the other and invite him/her to
dinner, to a party etc. The other pupil looks in hi s/her diary to see if he/she is free. Each pupil is given
a role card.

2 When both partners are ready, they sit facing each other and conduct the role-play. Although it is an
invitation, they can, of course, talk about other t hings.
(Note: Some useful phrases are supplied together wi th the instruction.)

Here are some sample role cards:

Sally Crocker or Mike Crocker Aged 26
You want your business colleague, Chris/Pam Overton , to come to your party next Friday.
You are very keen for him/her to come because you a re anxious to talk over a business
deal. So try very hard to get him/her to come. If n ecessary, you are prepared to change the
day – but you are busy on Wednesday and Sunday.
Phone him/her and try to arrange a suitable date.

Figure 6.6: An example of role-play (Watcyn-Jones 26-28)

The success of the role-play depends on factors suc h as careful presentation, clear
instructions, a clearly defined goal that lends the purpose, and the fact that linguistic demands
of the interaction lie within the scope of learners ’ competence (Ur 1997 133). However, the
greatest part of the success consists in motivation and willingness of learners to adopt roles
(Hedge 280). Sometimes students may find it difficu lt to identify with a character they were
given. This may result from their inhibition or the fact that they are not used to this kind of
exercise. Another possible reason may be students’ unfamiliarity with the “content” of a role.

Role-play is the only way in which a teacher can cr eate opportunities for learners to rehearse a
range of spoken language suitable for various kinds of real-life encounters. As learners take
on different social roles in the course of role-pla ying activities, they have a chance to practise
language which varies according to the profession o f a character, his status, personality and
mood. Other important parameters that students must be aware of in their use of language are
“the setting, the formality of the situation, the d egree of politeness or emotion required, and
the function required for a particular role…” (Hedg e 280). That is considered the greatest
contribution to the development of oral skills that role-playing activities offer. Pam Overton or Chris Overton Aged 32
You are a business colleague of Mike/Sally Crocker, but you do not know him/her well.
You do not like him/her very much because he/she is always asking you to join in some
crazy business deal or other. You do not want to go to the party, so try to find an excuse
for not going.
Before starting, fill in your diary for next week. You are free on Wednesday and Sunday.

– 66 – 6.4.3 Information-gap activities
Information-gap activities form the last type of or al exercise that will be discussed in this
chapter. The activities are structured in such a wa y that learners in order to complete the task
have to “overcome an information gap or solve a pro blem” (Littlewood 22). The basic
principle underlying “gap” activities is following: one learner or a group possesses
information which the other learner or group has to discover (22). Thus the stimulus for
communication, i.e. bridging an information gap, is incorporated within the task itself. Tasks
usually consist of two complementary parts (e.g. wo rksheets A and B). The information that is
to be shared may be presented as a picture or in a written form.

There is a range of possibilities in designing “gap ” activities. They may be graded in terms of
difficulty, gradually increasing the demands on lea rners’ communicative skills. They may
differ in terms of orientation and organization of the activity. A collection of information-gap
activities arranged according to the type and the l evel of difficulty is provided by Littlewood
(1994) 16 (see p.57-58). To denote this kind of tasks the au thor uses the term “functional
communication activities”. An example ranked among “pooling information to solve a
problem” is shown below (Littlewood 34-35):

Learner A has a train timetable showing the times o f trains from X to Y. Learner B has a timetable of
trains from Y to Z. Together the learners must work out the quickest possible journey from Newtown
to Swansea. It is important that they should not be able to see each other’s information.

Learner A’s information:
Newtown dep. : 11.34 13.31 15.18 16.45
Shrewsbury arr.: 12.22 14.181 16.08 18.25

Learner B’s information:
Shrewsbury dep.: 13.02 15.41 16.39 18.46
Swansea arr. : 17.02 19.19 20.37 22.32

Figure 6.7: An example of information-gap ac tivity (Littlewood 34-35)

It is believed that among different types of commun icative activities, it is information-gap
activities that encourage negotiation of meaning in the greatest extent. As far as the type of
organization is concerned, pair-work presents ideal conditions. It is assumed that the pair will
not stop speaking until they come to mutual underst anding. This will presumably entail more

16 Within his framework of speaking activities in Communicative Language Teaching (1994) Littlewood
describes the “nature” and purpose of “functional c ommunication activities” (i.e. information-gap acti vities). He
also includes some examples of these.

– 67 – requests for clarification, comprehension checks an d reformulations. The value of
information-gap activities consists in their demand s on producing accurate language, thus
encouraging negotiation of meaning. However, there are also weak points in these activities.
They sometimes do not resemble real situations that may occur outside the classroom. In
performing the tasks learners are not necessarily i nvolved in practising conversational
strategies (as they are in case of discussion or ro le-play) (Hedge 281).

6.5 Concluding remarks

Among the wide range of fluency-based activities th e three types discussed above, in my
opinion, constitute the most important types of ora l exercise. Each of these has a significant
contribution to make to the development of oral ski lls. There are also some limitations
contained within each of them. The strong and weak points of the three types will now be
considered in turn.

One of the greatest strengths of discussion is that this kind of interaction approaches most
closely the nature of casual conversation. Learners are given a chance to practise the strategies
employed in interpersonal communication. Inevitably , there are some problems to be
overcome. (These have already been discussed in the section 6.4.1, see p.63-66) Nonetheless,
outside the classroom learners will possibly encoun ter a wider variety of interaction patterns
than those the discussion can offer. Learners are l ikely to be involved in different kinds of
relationships and they will need to use language th at would correspond to the particular
situation (e.g. the level of formality, politeness etc.). This is where role-play “comes into play”.

Role-play can offer possibilities that discussion c annot. In role-play language use is no longer
limited by the constraints of the classroom. Studen ts, adopting different roles, practise “the
kind” of language they may eventually need in simil ar circumstances outside the class. Many
students enjoy role-play more than discussion since under a “different identity” they do not
have to take total responsibility for what they say . It is the character, not them, who says the
words. Moreover, they do not feel too “obliged” to make an intelligent or original point as
they may be in discussion. However, more inhibited students or those who have not been used
to such kind of exercise, as my experience confirms , may perceive role-play as an
intimidating activity. They may feel uneasy or even embarrassed when made to perform a
different role. It is my assumption that learners a re more willing to engage in an activity if

– 68 – they can see the relevance of the task, (i.e. of wh at they are asked to do). With older learners,
the demand of relevance can be fulfilled more easil y as they probably have a clear conception
of their needs with the foreign language. In this r espect, themes of role-play should resemble
as closely as possible the situations in which they need to use the language in their real lives.
With younger learners, the relevance of tasks may p resent a problem. Many of them do not
still have a clear idea of their ambitions concerni ng the foreign language. In seeking a solution
I have found useful Littlewood’s suggestion implyin g that younger learners may find
stimulation in activities based on familiar topics, e.g. family, school, and friends (1994 63).
Before leaving the subject of role-play, one final remark is to be made. For a role-play, roles
and situations are usually allotted. What is often missing is the purpose or objective for
students to give the direction to their performance . As students do not know what to aim for
the activity may end in confusion. Therefore, setti ng, at least, a preliminary objective may
prove helpful.

The contribution of information-gap activities lies in their demand of more accurate output. In
order to understand each other while performing a t ask, a pair of learners has to involve in
negotiation of meaning. In this way “gap” activitie s assist language acquisition well. Students
learn how to react to immediate problems in communi cation in order to achieve
understanding. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that st udents will need to solve a similar kind of
tasks in their lives outside the classroom. This fa ct reveals the weak point of those activities.
The language students use in tasks entails almost e xclusively sharing and/ or processing
factual information. Other functions of language (e .g. making suggestions, complaining,
apologizing, persuading etc.) remain somehow aside.

All the three types of activities are important to fostering oral skills. Each of them is
invaluable in some respects. Each of them develops a “certain area” of speaking skills more
than the two remaining types. The teacher’s task is to identify and define his students’ needs
in terms of speaking. Consequently, a careful selec tion of speaking activities, involving the
types mentioned in a balanced proportion, should be made. Necessary adjustments should be
undertaken so that demands of a task correspond to students’ competence. It should be in
common interest of both the teacher and students th at students enjoy the activity and at the
same time develop and refine their speaking skills as much as possible.

– 69 – Chapter 7
STUDENTS’ PROBLEMS IN SPEAKING

Chapter 7 deals with problems students may experien ce during speaking practice. The
difficulties are outlined and examined in terms of their possible causes. In the successive part
of the chapter suggestions how to “tackle” those pr oblems are offered. It is quite important for
students to feel comfortable and confident during s peaking activities. Only then they may be
willing to try and take risks that speaking entails . It is argued that students can learn to speak
only by speaking (Scrivener 146). If that is so the n fluency and confidence are equally
important goals of speaking practice (146).

7.1 The reasons for students’ reluctance to speak

Many learners, as reported by studies into speaking17 , are unprepared or unwilling to speak.
The reasons for their reluctance to speak may vary. It is still possible to identify the most
frequent causes that result in reluctance with lear ners. For a great number of learners the
factor limiting their oral performance is their pre vious learning experience. They were
possibly not encouraged to speak in their language classes. Speaking was not considered too
important a skill. In their lessons the emphasis wa s presumably placed on accuracy of
linguistic forms. Their idea of language lesson the refore may comprise reading and doing
written exercises that practise grammar. It is also possible that the classes learners attended
were very large. As a consequence of high number of learners their chance to speak was very
limited. Personal traits may constitute another rea son for learners’ reluctance. A number of
learners are rather introverted in their nature, th ey are not used to expressing themselves in
front of others (Bradwell). They do not enjoy being the centre of attention. That is why
speaking may present a problem for them. Many more reasons for learners’ unwillingness to
speak can be enumerated. It has seemed more reasona ble to categorize them as Burns and
Joyce did. They identified three groups of factors that are likely to cause reluctance with
learners. These encompass cultural, linguistic, and affective factors (Burns and Joyce 134).
Cultural factors follow from students’ prior learning experiences, as mentioned above, and
consequently from the expectations that are formed on their basis. Examples of linguistic
factors limiting speaking may be, according to Burns and J oyce, difficulties in the phonetics

17 E.g. Tsui: “Reticence and anxiety in second langua ge learning”.

– 70 – and phonology of the target language, poor knowledg e of grammatical patterns or low
awareness of cultural background and social convent ions that are necessary for processing
meaning in the target language. A low motivation le vel, timidity or anxiety in class, negative
social experiences, and culture shock are ranked am ong possible affective factors (134).

In discussing the methodology of speaking, Ur is al so preoccupied with learners’ problems
with speaking activities. The difficulties she has encountered in getting her learners to speak
in the class correspond to some of the items that w ere referred to above (see Table 7.1).

Learners’ problems with speaking activities

Mother tongue: This issue is valid especially for classes where th e majority of learners are speakers of the
same native language. During speaking activities le arners tend to “switch” to their mother tongue beca use, as
they report, they feel less exposed. If they lack a ppropriate words or structures, it is easier for th em to convey
their message in the mother tongue. Furthermore, it feels “unnatural” for them to communicate among
themselves in a foreign language.

Inhibition: Speaking activities often engage learners in expre ssing themselves in front of their classmates.
Some learners may feel uneasy in such situations. T hey may feel anxious about making mistakes, not
finding right expressions. They may be afraid of hu miliation and derision.

No ideas to share: Learners report that they often cannot think of wh at to say on a particular topic. Their
excuse is that they do not have any relevant knowle dge of the topic, they are not interested or have n o
ideas to contribute with.

Problems of participation: In speaking activities only one learner may speak at a time. This fact is further
complicated by a high number of learners in classes . Speaking time allotted to a learner is limited. I n addition,
some learners may tend to dominate the discussion, whereas others participate very little or not at al l.

Table 7.1: Learners’ problems in speaking (Adapted from Ur 121)

A careful investigation into the nature of learners ’ problems with speaking was conducted by
Tsui. She based her study on “the classroom action research project reports of thirty-eight ESL
teachers” (147). These were practising secondary sc hool teachers who enrolled to a two-year
in-service teacher training at the University of Ho ng Kong. The results Tsui presented reveal a
considerable similarity to those identified by Burn s and Joyce, and Ur. According to Tsui’s
study, there are five factors determining learners’ hesitancy to speak in class (Tsui 148-155):

• Students’ fear of making mistakes and losing face in front of their peers.
• Students’ low opinion of their own proficiency leve l: Generally, learners tend to
underestimate their skills, speaking skill is not t he exception. Factors such as lack of
confidence and a low opinion of their language prof iciency result in their reticence to take
risks, which is a necessary prerequisite of speakin g.

– 71 – • Teachers’ intolerance of silence: It was revealed that quite a high number of teache rs
participating in the study gave their students very little or no time to think about their response.
• Uneven participation: It emerged from the study that teachers had the te ndency to address
“smarter” students when eliciting answers to their questions. Tsui concluded that this is
probably connected to the previously mentioned phen omenon, i.e. teachers’ intolerance of
silence.
• Incomprehensible input: The teacher talk was in many instances considered too difficult and
teachers’ questions to learners as not specific eno ugh and often confusing.

7.2 Suggestions of possible solutions to students’ problems

A question was addressed as to what can be done in order to help learners overcome some of their
problems with speaking. There are some suggestions that were offered to teachers’ attention:

a) Employ pair-work and group-work.
b) Select the topic and task carefully.
c) Adjust the level of language difficulty.
d) Make learners speak the target language.
e) Establish good relationships (Tsui 164).
(Adapted from Ur 121-122)

Add a) Employ pair-work and group-work
When working in pairs or groups, as my experience c onfirms, students do not feel as
“exposed” as if speaking in front of the full class . This organization of speaking activities may
decrease the extent of pressure on students who are shy and students inhibited about making
mistakes. This arrangement could also help to invol ve learners who resist participating in
speaking practice for various other reasons (e.g. a poor interest in the topic, lack of
motivation, no ideas to share, a low opinion of the ir language proficiency, negative social
experience, etc.). Group-work and pair-work create the atmosphere of cooperation. In
addition, most students, as students themselves rep ort, are more “eager” to share their ideas
and impressions with a few closer classmates than w ith the whole class or the teacher. This may
help to increase students’ motivation to embark upo n the task at all and also to complete it.
What students may perceive advantageous is that the y are given time to think of what to say
and the opportunity to rehearse their speech in a “ low-risk” situation before they are called on

– 72 – to speak up in class. After discussing with their p eers, students may gain more confidence and
usually do not feel so threatened (Tsui 162). They feel that they have the support of their
classmates when they put their opinions forward (16 3). Sometimes, however, the teacher may
decide to remain at the stage of group discussion a nd not to call on individual learners at all.

Add b) Select the topic and the task carefully
It would be desirable if the selected topic and tas k related to students’ experience and
interests. Brown also suggests appealing to student s’ ultimate goals, to their need for
knowledge and status, and for achieving competence and autonomy (275). It also “pays” to
help students “see how the activity will benefit th em” (Brown 275). As long as students
perceive the task to be meaningful and worth perfor ming, their motivation shall increase. This
in turn should stimulate their wish to participate and contribute. In general, the task is to be
neither too easy nor too complicated. Students shou ld be clear of what they are supposed to do.

Add c) Adjust the level of language difficulty
For fluency activities the level of language that w ill be needed should be, on the whole, a
little lower than that in accuracy activities (Ur 1 22). This should enable learners to be more
fluent in their expression. Moreover, it is recomme nded that the teacher’s attention is to be
focused more on the content of what a learner conve ys than its form. (In Czech language
classrooms students depend almost exclusively on th e teacher to provide corrective linguistic
feedback. However, the teacher should be sensitive enough to feel what kind of feedback is
suitable for different learning situations.)

Add d) Make learners speak the target language
Ur proposes appointing one learner in each group as a monitor (122). His task is to keep
others speaking the target language. Even the very fact that someone is watching for these
“infringements” of slipping into their mother tongu e makes students act “more carefully”.
The teacher monitors the group work as far as it is appropriate. Even though there are likely
to be mistakes in learners’ speech and occasional s lips into their native language, the benefits
of this type of organization (as emerged from my re search as well), still prevail.

– 73 – Add e) Establish good relationships
A necessary prerequisite for creating a favourable learning atmosphere in the class is to
establish a good relationship between the teacher a nd his students. One of the possible ways
of pursuing this aim is to talk with students about their feelings and help them rationalize
their anxiety about speaking (Tsui 164). The teache r may decide to talk to individual students
outside the classroom, as students may feel inhibit ed about discussing their feelings in front
of their classmates. This “step” may contribute to the creation of trust and “partnership”
between the student and the teacher (164).

In addition to the suggestions outlined above, ther e may be few more principles for
successful speaking practice attached. According to Brown, speaking activities should cover
the whole spectrum of learners’ needs, from focus o n accuracy to focus on interaction,
meaning and fluency (275). In speaking practice the natural link between speaking and
listening may be exploited. It is useful to integra te those two skills as they can reinforce each
other (Brown 276). Finally, students should be enco uraged to develop and make use of
communication strategies (276), (see section 3.3).

All the suggested steps should contribute to creati ng a supportive and “low-anxiety
classroom atmosphere”, which is the key to making s tudents speak (Tsui 164). In such an
atmosphere students will feel comfortable and more willing to take risks connected with
speaking. If the mutual relationship of students an d the teacher is harmonious and the
teacher’s feedback on students’ performance mostly positive, there should be nothing
“standing in the way of success”.

– 74 – Chapter 8
RESEARCH CONTEXT

Chapter 8 is concerned with the research. It intend s to introduce the primary stimulus for
exploring the field of speaking. In the following s ections the aims of the research are outlined,
the research method and research “tool”, i.e. the q uestionnaires, are described in more detail.
Eventually, the research sample is characterized an d the research procedure presented.

8.1 The research context

The stimulus to explore the topic of speaking, more precisely the position of speaking in the
current ELT at secondary schools, came from the tea ching practice. I first started to think
about this theme when I was doing my teaching pract ice at a grammar school. As I was
observing English lessons led by my mentor teacher I began to notice, besides the pattern of
teacher-learner interaction, the distribution of ti me for different kinds of activities. If I dared
to make some generalisations, I would say that the greatest amount of time (60-65%) in
English lessons was devoted to accuracy work, with grammar practice as the prevailing
activity. This “statement” applied especially to le ssons with younger learners. With higher
grades lessons were a little different, though the difference was not very significant. Students
still followed their textbooks practising certain f eatures of language. Occasionally, (but in a
higher proportion in comparison with younger studen ts), they were allowed a freer interaction.

I also began to notice the teacher’s treatment of s peaking activities. Most of speaking
activities were carried out in a more or less contr olled way. For some activities students were
divided in pairs or groups. They were given a task of a similar kind as, for example, discuss
your ideas or attitudes concerning a particular pas sage of an article, decide on a solution to the
outlined problem or perhaps answer comprehension qu estions to an article. When students
were called on to state their reasons or express th eir opinion they were, in many cases, given
not much waiting time from the teacher. Sometimes t he teacher “put words in their mouths”,
at other times answered the question herself. Howev er, this was not the case with all the
students. There were, of course, some more proficie nt speakers among them. Paradoxically
enough, they were allowed more time to express them selves than the less proficient who
would have needed, at least in my opinion, to pract ise speaking more. Out of the total

– 75 – teaching time, the amount allocated to group-work ( speaking in groups) was rather small. As
emerged from the conversation with the mentor teach er there were various reasons for this.
The lack of discipline on the part of students cons tituted one of them. The group-work
showed to be time-consuming which did not compare w ell to the “tight” teaching plan for the
term. Moreover, it was quite difficult to keep stud ents speaking the target language while
working in groups or pairs. All in all, speaking ac tivities might take up a quarter of the total
lessons’ time. Within them much more time was spent on accuracy work (in comparison to
fluency work). It seemed that fluency-based tasks w ere considered a kind of additional activity.

In my opinion, there were not enough opportunities for students to express themselves, to try
out items they have learnt in “action”, i.e. in com munication. My assumption was confirmed
when I was given the opportunity to teach them myse lf. I gradually incorporated speaking
activities into lessons, (of course these lay withi n the framework of the tasks given to me by
my mentor teacher). I tried to observe students’ re actions in the course of speaking. Some of
them were rather diffident, some of them acted in a confident manner. When they were
divided in groups with an aim of discussing an outl ined problem or their ideas and attitudes
with their peers, their discussion usually finished very soon, after a few attempts at conveying
a message. When they were called on to answer compr ehension questions to an article after
discussing them in groups, I was quite surprised to hear literally the same sentences as those
written in the article. In some cases, the students even read the sentences from their textbook. I
experienced similar situations during my teaching p ractice at several other schools. The aim of
this section was not to assess or criticize the way of teaching or qualities of teachers. The aim
was to explain or “illuminate” where my idea and in terest in this part of methodology aroused.

8.2 The research aims

After this experience I resolved on taking the issu e of speaking as the topic for my diploma
thesis and the basis for my research. I decided to find out how students and subsequently their
teachers perceive speaking within the framework of English Language Teaching. The aims of
the research were following: to find out what views and attitudes to speaking activities
students and teachers hold. What importance they at tach to the development of oral skills in
language learning/ teaching. How much time is devot ed to speaking practice in their English
lessons. What proportion of accuracy to fluency wor k there is within speaking activities, and
which of them is, in their opinion, more important to communication. When (under what

– 76 – circumstances, within what arrangement) students ar e most willing to speak, and how they
assess their own oral skills. In order to discover the real “state of affairs” in this field, I
eventually set out to secondary school classrooms t o explore the situation concerning speaking.

8.3 The research method

The research was conducted by the method of questio nnaire under the heading of “The
position of speaking in the current ELT at secondar y schools from the point of view of
students and teachers”. There were two types of a q uestionnaire, one was designed for
students, the other for their teachers.

8.3.1 The questionnaire for students
The questionnaire intended for students comprised t welve questions. For two of them students
were asked to note down their answers, i.e. their r easons and preferences. The remaining ten
belonged to the category of closed questions. For t hem students were asked to circle only one
of the suggested possibilities. The first set of qu estions was concerned with students’ reasons
for learning English together with their attitude t owards English-speaking community. The
following questions sought their views on importanc e of speaking in language teaching and
the amount of time devoted to speaking activities i n their English lessons. They were enquired
about the proportion of accuracy and fluency work w ithin speaking in their lessons and their
opinion concerning the value of the two for communi cation. In the last set of questions
students were asked to express their attitude to sp eaking activities including under what
circumstances they are most willing to speak. Event ually, they were expected to assess their
own speaking skill, and subsequently to mark whethe r or not they develop it outside the
classroom as well. For the full version of Question naire for students, see Appendix VI.

8.3.2 The questionnaire for teachers
The questionnaire for teachers consisted of twelve questions as well. Out of the total number
of questions, ten were closed questions, two requir ed an extended answer. Some of the
questions for teachers were similar to those for st udents, some were different. However, the
focus of the questionnaire stayed the same as in th e previous case. In the first part of the
questionnaire the teachers’ view on the importance of speaking in language teaching was
detected. Teachers were enquired about the amount o f time they allocate to speaking activities
in their lessons. How much of the total time devote d to speaking is taken up by accuracy

– 77 – work, how much time by fluency work. What activitie s they prefer/ use most often in accuracy
and fluency practice in speaking. They were asked a bout the most efficient “technique” in
making their students speak and also about their st udents’ attitude and reactions to speaking
activities. Further, they were expected to mark whe ther or not, and in which cases, they use the
mother tongue in lessons. The final part contained questions concerning the assessment of their
own oral skills and their further development. The concluding question sought new trends in
teaching speaking that teachers might be familiar w ith, possibly their source of information. For
Questionnaire for the teacher, see Appendix VII.

8.4 The research sample

The research was carried out at four different seco ndary schools 1. Two of them were grammar
schools and two secondary schools with a specializa tion (st řední odborné školy 2 – Obchodní
akademie a St řední škola sociáln ě-správní). There were fifty questionnaires for stud ents and
five questionnaires for teachers distributed at eac h of the four schools. At each school the
research was undertaken in two (or three) grades, w ith one of the classes of younger students
(usually the second grade of the 4-year cycle, with students aged between 16 and 17), and the
other with older students (usually the fourth grade of the 4-year cycle, with students aged
between 18 and 19). At grammar schools, there were usually two parallel classes within one
grade chosen for the research, i.e. the second grad e of the 4-year cycle and the sixth grade of
the 8-year cycle, similarly with older students. T he research was anonymous, students were
asked to mark only the grade.

Here are the numbers of the returned questionnaires that were suitable for evaluation:
Grammar school
A Grammar school
B Obchod.
akademie SŠ sociáln ě-
správní
No. of younger
students 29 16 21 13
No. of older
students 18 23 15 12
No. of teachers 3 5 3 3
Total number of
students 47 39 36 25
Table 8.1: Number of returned questionnaires

1 All four schools are situated either in the surrou ndings or in the city of Brno.
2 The abbreviations “OA” and “SS” will be used throu ghout the text to refer to Obchodní akademie and St řední
škola sociáln ě-správní respectively.

– 78 – 8.5 The research procedure

After contacting the schools and gaining the permis sion for administering a questionnaire I
asked one of the English teachers at each school fo r cooperation. The teachers obtained a
letter acknowledging my reasons for the research an d expressing my thanks. On an
appointment with each of the teachers, I explained the aims of the research and gave
necessary instructions. There were several stages i n the research procedure. With the help of
my hand-outs, students were acquainted with the dis tinction between accuracy and fluency
activities and given examples of each of them. In t he second stage, the questionnaires for
students were distributed. Students together with t heir teacher read through the questions.
Possible uncertainties were clarified. Subsequently , students went through their questionnaires
once more, this time marking the answers that corre sponded to their views on the given topic/
issue. Eventually, the teachers together with their colleagues in the English section were asked
to fill in the questionnaires designed for them. Fo r the introductory letter and the hand-out
explaining the distinction between accuracy and flu ency activities, see Appendices VIII, IX.

A remark has to be made about the piloting of the q uestionnaires. The questionnaire for
students was piloted at the first secondary school I visited. The English teacher agreed on the
possibility of me conducting the research with the students. I followed the procedure
described in the previous paragraph. In the second stage, the students were asked to indicate
all the items that might present a problem for them . For instance, they were not sure about the
meaning of an item, or the meaning of the whole que stion or suggested possibilities. All the
potential problems were explained. I found out that the students in both classes (the second
and fourth grade) were able to understand quite cle arly, with an exception of a few
expressions. In the following stage, they were capa ble of filling the questionnaires on their
own. The words that presented a problem with a high number of students were marked, and
their translations supplied in the questionnaire fo r the use at the three remaining schools. It
was not necessary to make any further changes in th e questionnaire for students.

– 79 – Chapter 9
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The aim of Chapter 9 is to provide results that the research revealed. The first part of the
chapter is concerned with the results of the sample of students from the four secondary
schools mentioned above. For the purposes of the an alysis the students were divided in two
age groups (younger and older students) within the two types of secondary schools, i.e.
grammar schools and secondary technical schools. Th e results of individual groups are
displayed, described and compared where appropriate . In the second part of the chapter the
results of the teachers are presented. The graphs d emonstrate the results of all teachers from
the four secondary schools. However, where it appea rs desirable the distinction is drawn
between the views of the teachers from individual s chools. The arrangement of the chapter
follows the order of questions in the questionnaire s.

9.1 Students’ results

QUESTION 1: Why are you learning English? Give your reasons, please.

Students were asked to state their reasons for lear ning English. The answers that reappeared
most frequently are recorded in the tables below. F or explanation of individual items, see p. 80.

Grammar school A Younger students Older students
1 international (world) language 10 6
2 important to be able to speak a FL 10 6
3 obligatory subject 13 5
4 interested in E or enjoy learning E 2 4
5 like E better than German 2 0
6 extend future opportunities 4 9
7 need E for current work/ interest 1 0
Table 9.1: Results-Grammar school A

Grammar school B Younger students Older students
1 international (world) language 7 9
2 important to be able to speak a FL 13 8
3 obligatory subject 2 3
4 interested in E or enjoy learning E 6 2
5 like E better than German 0 2
6 extend future opportunities 9 13
7 need E for current work/ interest 1 2
Table 9.2: Results-Grammar school B

– 80 –

Table 9.3: Results-Obchodní akademie

Explanation:

1 English is an international (world) language. Eng lish is spoken and understood all over the world.
2 Nowadays it is important and also useful to be ab le to speak a foreign language, to be able to
communicate with other people (foreigners), to be a ble to “get meanings across”.
3 English is an obligatory subject in the school’s curriculum.
4 I am interested in English / I enjoy learning Eng lish.
5 I like English better than German, (that is why I chose to learn English).
6 I am learning English to extend my future opportu nities (e.g. a future job, university studies,
travelling abroad, staying and working abroa d temporarily…).
7 I need English in my current work (a travel agent , a guide…) or possibly for my interest (PC games,
the internet, to be able to read in English) .

SS Sociáln ě-správní Younger students Older students
1 international (world) language 4 3
2 important to be able to speak a FL 2 5
3 obligatory subject 2 1
4 interested in E or enjoy learning E 2 3
5 like E better than German 2 1
6 extend future opportunities 1 5
7 need E for current work/ interest 0 0
Table 9.4: Results-SS Sociáln ě správní

QUESTION 2: Do you seek opportunities to use Englis h?

Grammar schools A and B
The results of the grammar schools A and B show tha t the majority of students, younger and
older, exploit the opportunity to use English only if it occurs spontaneously. Similar
proportions of younger (20%) and older students (22 %) actively seek opportunities to use
English. 22% of the younger students do not exploit the opportunity to use English at all. Obchodní akademie Younger students Older students
1 international (world) language 4 4
2 important to be able to speak a FL 11 9
3 obligatory subject 3 2
4 interested in E or enjoy learning E 7 6
5 like E better than German 1 0
6 extend future opportunities 5 6
7 need E for current work/ interest 0 2

– 81 – There is a certain progress in this area with the o lder students as none of the respondents
chose the negative answer (c).
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
20%
58% 22% Yes, I do. I
actively seek
opportunities
to use English.
When an
opportunity
comes up, I
make use of it.
No, I don't. Older students: Grammar schools A + B
22%
78% 0% Yes, I do. I
actively seek
opportunities
to use English.
When an
opportunity
comes up, I
make use of it.
No, I don't.

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
18%
38% 44% Yes, I do. I
actively seek
opportunities
to use English.
When an
opportunity
comes up, I
make use of it.
No, I don't. Older students: OA + SS
11%
67% 22% Yes, I do. I
actively seek
opportunities
to use English.
When an
opportunity
comes up, I
make use of it.
No, I don't.

Within the younger students of the secondary techni cal schools whole 44% do not seek or
exploit the opportunity to use English. With the ol der students this percentage decreases to
22%. However, if compared to the older Ss of the gr ammar schools with no negative answer,
the percentage is still quite high.

QUESTION 3: What is your attitude towards English-s peaking community?

a) I am interested in English-speaking community – its life-style, social conventions, culture
b) I am quite interested, but I do not know much ab out in English-speaking community
c) I am not interested in English-speaking community

– 82 – Grammar schools A and B
Almost a half of the younger students of GrSs 3 (47%) responded that they were quite
interested but did not know much about English-spea king community. With the older students
of GrSs the results revealed a comparatively deeper interest in English-speaking community.
More than a half of the older Ss 4 (56%) marked the first possibility, i.e. answer a) .
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
20%
47% 33%
a)
b)
c) Older students: Grammar schools A + B
56%
24% 20%
a)
b)
c)

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
9%
47% 44% a)
b)
c) Older students: OA + SS
11%
52% 37% a)
b)
c)

Within the younger students of the technical school s, almost a half (47%), in agreement with
the younger Ss of GrSs, chose the second possibilit y. However, about the same proportion of
the younger Ss (44%) reported their indifference to English-speaking community. A half of
the older Ss of technical schools (52%) are quite i nterested in English-speaking community.
Nevertheless, more than a third of them (37%) do no t show any interest at all.

3 The abbreviation “GrS” stands for “grammar school” .
4 The abbreviation “Ss” is used to refer to “student s”.

– 83 – QUESTION 4: How important is, in your opinion, spea king in learning English in
comparison to other skills (listening, reading, wri ting)?

Grammar schools A and B
As it is apparent from the results younger students of GrSs attach a greater importance to
learning speaking than their older schoolmates. 65% of the younger students, as opposed to
44% of the older students, ascribed to learning spe aking 75% of importance in comparison to
the three remaining language skills. About a third of the younger (31%) and also older
students (34%) assigned 50% of importance to speaki ng within language learning.
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
0%
4%
31%
65% less than 15%
of importance
about 25% of
importance
50% of
importance
75% of
importance Older students: Grammar schools A + B
0% 22%
34% 44% less than 15%
of importance
about 25% of
importance
50% of
importance
75% of
importance

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
3%
6%
62% 29% less than 15%
of importance
about 25% of
importance
50% of
importance
75% of
importance Older students: OA + SS
0%
4%
52% 44% less than 15%
of importance
about 25% of
importance
50% of
importance
75% of
importance

The majority of the younger students of OA and SS ( 62%) ascribed to learning speaking 50%
of importance. 29% of younger students think that s peaking compared to other skills assumes
75% of importance. A half of the older students of OA and SS assessed the importance of
speaking to 50%. 44% of the older students, in agre ement with the older students of GrSs,
marked 75% of importance in favour of speaking.

– 84 – QUESTON 5: How much time is devoted to “practising” speaking in your English lessons?

Grammar schools A and B
38% of the younger students and 47% of the older st udents reported that in their English lessons
there was about 25% of time devoted to speaking. Ab out a quarter of younger students and 29%
of older agreed that 50% of the total lessons’ time is allotted to “practising” speaking.
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
27%
38% 24% 11% less than 15%
of the total
lessons' time
about 20-25%
of the time
50% of the
time
75% of the
time Older students: Grammar schools A + B
7%
47% 29% 17% less than 15%
of the total
lessons' time
about 20-25%
of the time
50% of the
time
75% of the
time

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
41%
32% 15% 12% less than 15%
of the total
lessons' time
about 20-25%
of the time
50% of the
time
75% of the
time Older students: OA + SS
19%
55% 26% 0% less than 15%
of the total
lessons' time
about 20-25%
of the time
50% of the
time
75% of the
time

The students of secondary technical schools reporte d a comparatively smaller amount of time
allotted to speaking activities in their English le ssons. Whole 41% of the younger and 19% of
the older students think that speaking activities t ake up less than 15% of the total lessons’
time. The percentages of the younger and older stud ents of OA and SS who circled the second
possibility (i.e. 20-25% of the time) roughly corre spond to the percentages revealed at
grammar schools.

– 85 – QUESTION 6: Do you think the amount of time devoted to speaking is sufficient?

Grammar schools A and B
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
22%
78% yes
no Older students: Grammar schools A + B
37%
63% yes
no

More than three quarters of the younger students an d 63% of the older students indicated that
the amount of time devoted to speaking in their les sons was insufficient.

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
44%
56% yes
no Older students: OA + SS
52% 48% yes
no

The opinion of the OA and SS students was slightly different from that of the grammar school
students. 44% of the younger and 52% of the older s tudents responded that the amount of time
allotted to speaking activities in their English le ssons was sufficient.

– 86 – QUESTION 7: Which type of activities is used in you r English lessons more often –
accuracy or fluency practice?

a) accuracy practice more than 60% of the time devo ted to speaking (e.g. drills, question and
answer practice, dialogue practice…)
b) fluency practice more than 60% of the time devot ed to speaking (e.g. discussion, role-play,
improvisation, information-gap activities, problem- solving tasks …)
c) accuracy and fluency practice in about the same proportion

Grammar schools A and B
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
51%
20% 29%
a)
b)
c) Older students: Grammar schools A + B
56%
12% 32%
a)
b)
c)

There was agreement between the younger and the old er students of grammar schools as far
as the results of Question 7 are concerned. More th an a half of students in both categories
suggested that accuracy-focused activities prevaile d within their speaking practice. About a
third of students in both age groups reported the s ame proportion of accuracy and fluency
practice in speaking activities.

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
50%
21% 29%
a)
b)
c) Older students: OA + SS
33%
15% 52% a)
b)
c)

– 87 – The results of the younger students of secondary te chnical schools significantly correlate with
the results of the younger (and in a lesser extent also with the older) grammar school students.
The older students of OA and SS reported the same p roportion of accuracy and fluency
activities in 52%, and prevailing accuracy practice within speaking in 33%.

QUESTION 8: Which do you prefer – accuracy practice or fluency practice? Which of
the two is, in your opinion, more important to comm unication?

a) I prefer accuracy practice, I consider accuracy practice more important to communication
b) I prefer fluency practice, I consider fluency p ractice more important to communication
c) I prefer accuracy practice, but I consider fluen cy practice more important to communication
d) I prefer fluency practice, but I consider accura cy practice more important to communication

Grammar schools A and B
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
11%
49% 22% 18%
a)
b)
c)
d) Older students: Grammar schools A + B
5%
43%
32% 20%
a)
b)
c)
d)

The preferences of the younger and older grammar sc hool students agree to quite a high
extent. About a half of students in both age groups prefer fluency practice and at the same
time consider fluency practice more important to co mmunication. The second place as to their
preferences is taken by the possibility (c).

Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
The results of the younger and older students of OA and SS correspond to a great extent as in
the previous case. This time, however, the proporti on of students is reversed, with a higher
percentage (49% of younger and 52% of older student s) in favour of the possibility (c).
Although this group of respondents prefers accuracy practice, they still consider fluency
practice to be more important to communication.

– 88 – Younger students: OA + SS
15%
24%
49% 12%
a)
b)
c)
d) Older students: OA + SS
11%
30%
52% 7%
a)
b)
c)
d)

QUESTION 9: What is your attitude towards speaking activities? Do you feel secure
and self-confident when “practising” speaking?

a) I like (enjoy) speaking activities + I feel secu re and self-confident when practising speaking
b) I like (enjoy) speaking activities + more practi ce would be needed for me to feel secure and
self-confident when practising speaking
c) I do not especially like (enjoy) speaking activi ties + but I feel secure and self-confident when
practising speaking
d) I do not especially like (enjoy) speaking activi ties + I do not feel secure and self-confident
when practising speaking

Grammar schools A and B
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
13%
43%
4% 40% a)
b)
c)
d) Older students: Grammar schools A + B
15%
55% 20% 10%
a)
b)
c)
d)

The possibility b) constituted the most frequent an swer with the younger (43%) as well as older
students (55%). About the same number of younger st udents (40%) expressed their attitude to
speaking activities in negative terms, i.e. the pos sibility d). 20% of the older students, though not
especially enjoying speaking activities, feel secur e and self-confident when “practising” speaking.

– 89 – Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
6%
44%
21% 29%
a)
b)
c)
d) Older students: OA + SS
15%
67% 11% 7%
a)
b)
c)
d)

Similarly to the grammar school students, the most frequent answer with the OA and SS
students was the option b). 44% of the younger and 67% of the older students agreed that
more practice would be needed for them to feel conf ident while speaking. While almost a
third of the younger students expressed a negative attitude to speaking activities, 15% of older
students assessed themselves as confident speakers.

QUESTION 10: When (in what situation) are you most willing to speak?

Grammar schools A and B
About a half of the younger students (52%) were in favour of pair-work. A quarter of younger
students are most willing to speak when working in groups. Within the older students 42%
opted for speaking in pairs. However, about the sam e number of them (41%) indicated that
they preferred speaking for themselves, i.e. as ind ividuals.
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
24%
52% 24% when working
(speaking) in
groups
when working
(speaking) in
pairs
when working
(speaking) as
an individualOlder students: Grammar schools A + B
17%
42% 41% when working
(speaking) in
groups
when working
(speaking) in
pairs
when working
(speaking) as
an individual

– 90 – Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
With the younger students the “scores” for each of the three options are nearly equal. In
contrast, a half of the older students (48%) prefer speaking in pairs and other 30% favour
speaking in groups.
Younger students: OA + SS
36%
35% 29% when working
(speaking) in
groups
when working
(speaking) in
pairs
when working
(speaking) as
an individualOlder students: OA + SS
30%
48% 22% when working
(speaking) in
groups
when working
(speaking) in
pairs
when working
(speaking) as
an individual

QUESTION 11: How do you feel about your speaking sk ill? Are you able to
communicate in different situations?

a) my speaking skill is excellent – I am able to co mmunicate in a variety of different situations
b) my speaking skill is sufficient – I am able to c ommunicate in a limited number of situations
c) my speaking skill is poor

Grammar schools A and B
A half of the younger together with 68% of the olde r students assessed their speaking skill as
sufficient, i.e. they are able to communicate in a limited number of situations. More than a
third (38%) of the younger students, as opposed to 15% of their older schoolmates, consider
their speaking skill to be poor.
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
11%
51% 38% excellent
speaking skill
sufficient
speaking skill
poor speaking
skillOlder students: Grammar schools A + B
17%
68% 15% excellent
speaking skill
sufficient
speaking skill
poor speaking
skill

– 91 – Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
12%
67% 21% excellent
speaking skill
sufficient
speaking skill
poor speaking
skillOlder students: OA + SS
4%
77% 19% excellent
speaking skill
sufficient
speaking skill
poor speaking
skill

The majority of the students of technical schools a ssumed that their speaking skill was
sufficient. 21% of the younger and 19% of the older students evaluated their speaking skill as
poor. Only 4% of older students (12% in case of you nger students) assessed their oral skills as
excellent.

QUESTION 12: Do you develop your speaking skill out side the classroom as well? How?

Grammar schools A and B
60% of the younger and 32% of the older students re ported that they did not develop their
speaking skill outside the classroom. In the second set of numbers, a certain progress is
apparent. 40% of the younger students foster their oral skills outside the classroom as well.
With the older students the number reached as high as to 68%.
Younger students: Grammar schools A + B
40%
60% Yes, I do.
No, I don't. Older students: Grammar schools A + B
68% 32%
Yes, I do.
No, I don't.

– 92 – Obchodní akademie and SS Sociáln ě-správní
Younger students: OA + SS
26%
74% Yes, I do.
No, I don't. Older students: OA + SS
41%
59% Yes, I do.
No, I don't.

In comparison to the grammar school students, the s tudents of technical schools devote to the
development of their oral skills still less attenti on and time. 74% of the younger and 59% of
the older students do not develop their speaking sk ill outside the classroom at all. A quarter of
younger and 41% of older students responded positiv ely.

QUESTION 12: Do you develop your speaking skill out side the classroom as well? How?

Grammar school A Younger students Older students
1 communicating with foreigners in E 5,
with friends of different nationalities 3 3
2 speaking E when on holiday abroad 2 2
3 watching movies in E with subtitles 1 4
4 watching movies in E without subtitles,
TV programmes in E, TV series 0 2
5 working with PC (internet: e-mail,
chat, browsing; PC games) 2 3
6 attending an E language course,
individual lessons of E 1 2
7 reading in E (magazines, lyrics,
searching for new vocabulary) 0 0
8 listening to music in E 0 1
9 speaking E with a family member
or a Czech friend 0 1
10 6 speaking E in my current work 0 0
Table 9.5: Results-Grammar school A

Younger students: Out of the total number of 29 students, 11 of them develop their speaking skill outside
the classroom.
Older students: total number of Ss: 18; 13 of them develop their speaking skill outside the classroom

5 “ E” stands for “English”.
6 10 speaking English in my current work (a part-time job as a guide, a travel agent, etc.).

– 93 – Grammar school B Younger students Older students
1 communicating with foreigners in E,
with friends of different nationalities 1 2
2 speaking E when on holiday abroad 1 2
3 watching movies in E with subtitles 3 1
4 watching movies in E without subtitles,
TV programmes in E, TV series 0 3
5 working with PC (internet: e-mail,
chat, browsing; PC games) 1 7
6 attending an E language course,
individual lessons of E 1 1
7 reading in E (magazines, lyrics,
searching for new vocabulary) 2 3
8 listening to music in E 0 1
9 speaking E with a family member
or a Czech friend 1 1
10 speaking E in my current work 0 1
Table 9.6: Results-Grammar school B

Younger students: total number of Ss: 16; 9 of them develop their s peaking skill outside the classroom
Older students: total number of Ss: 23; 15 of them develop their speaking skill outside the classroom

Note: Some of the students noted down more than one way in which they develop their speaking skill
outside the classroom. However, some of the student s who circled the positive answer did not write
how they develop their speaking skill.

Obchodní akademie Younger students Older students
1 communicating with foreigners in E,
with friends of different nationalities 0 1
2 speaking E when on holiday abroad 2 1
3 watching movies in E with subtitles 2 2
4 watching movies in E without subtitles,
TV programmes in E, TV series 0 0
5 working with PC (internet: e-mail,
chat, browsing; PC games) 5 4
6 attending an E language course,
individual lessons of E 0 0
7 reading in E (magazines, lyrics,
searching for new vocabulary) 0 2
8 listening to music in E 2 1
9 speaking E with a family member
or a Czech friend 0 1
10 speaking E in my current work 0 0
Table 9.7: Results-Obchodní akademie

Younger students: total number of Ss: 21; 5 of them develop their sp eaking skill outside the classroom
Older students: total number of Ss: 15; 6 of them develop their sp eaking skill outside the classroom

– 94 –
SS Sociáln ě-správní Younger students Older students
1 communicating with foreigners in E,
with friends of different nationalities 0 0
2 speaking E when on holiday abroad 0 0
3 watching movies in E with subtitles 2 3
4 watching movies in E without subtitles,
TV programmes in E, TV series 0 0
5 working with PC (internet: e-mail,
chat, browsing; PC games) 2 1
6 attending an E language course,
individual lessons of E 0 1
7 reading in E (magazines, lyrics,
searching for new vocabulary) 0 0
8 listening to music in E 1 2
9 speaking E with a family member
or a Czech friend 0 0
10 speaking E in my current work 0 0
Table 9.8: Results-SS Sociáln ě správní

Younger students: total number of Ss: 13; 4 of them develop their s peaking skill outside the classroom
Older students: total number of Ss: 12; 5 of them develop their s peaking skill outside the classroom

9.2 Teachers’ results

Grammar school
A Grammar school
B Obchod.
akademie Sociáln ě-
správní Question
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
1 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0
2 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0
3 1 2 x x 1 4 x x 3 0 x x 0 3 x x
4 0 1 2 x 0 1 4 x 1 1 1 x 0 1 2 x
5 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0
6 0 0 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0
7 0 3 0 x 0 4 1 x 0 3 0 x 1 2 0 x
8 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2
9 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0
10 3 0 x x 5 0 x x 3 0 x x 1 2 x x
11 3 0 x x 3 2 x x 2 1 x x 3 0 x x
Table 9.9: Teachers – results of individual schools

Note: Out of the total number of 14 teachers there were 13 female teachers and only 1 male teacher.

– 95 – QUESTION 1: How important is, in your opinion, spea king in teaching English in
comparison to other skills (listening, reading, wri ting)?

a) less than 15% of importance in b) about 25% of i mportance
comparison to other skills (L, R and W)
c) 50% of importance d) 75% of importance

36% of the teachers assigned 25% of importance to s peaking in English teaching. An equal
proportion of the teachers (36%) think that speakin g assumes 50% of importance in
comparison to other language skills. The second gra ph displays the views of the teachers from
individual schools. The total agreement as far as t he importance of speaking is concerned can
be traced only at the grammar school A.
Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
7%
36%
36% 21% less than 15%
of importance
about 25% of
importance
50% of
importance
75% of
importance 03
0 0 012 2
01 1 1 1
02
0
less than
15% of
importance about 25%
of
importance 50% of
importance 75% of
importance
GrS A GrS B OA SS

QUESTION 2: How much time do you devote to “practis ing” speaking in your English
lessons?

The results show an even distribution of the answer s between two options. A half of the
teachers devote about 25% of their lessons to speak ing activities, the other half allot to
speaking 50% of the total lessons’ time. The second graph again reveals consensus among the
teachers of the grammar school A.

– 96 – Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
0%
50% 50% 0% less than 15%
of the total
lessons' time
20-25% of the
time
50% of the
time
more than
50% of the
time 03
0 0 023
0 012
0 012
0
less than
15% of
the total
lessons'
time about
20-25%
of the
time 50% of
the time more
than
50% of
the time GrS A
GrS B
OA
SS

QUESTION 3: Do you think the amount of time devoted to speaking in your lessons is
sufficient for your students?

Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
36%
64% yes
no
00,5 11,5 22,5 33,5 4
GrS A GrS B OA SS yes
no

The majority of the teachers (64%) agreed that more time would be needed for speaking
activities in their lessons. Nevertheless, 36% assu me that the amount of time devoted to
speaking is sufficient for their students. The resu lts recorded in the second graph show an
incongruity of the teachers’ opinions. As opposed t o the SS teachers, the teachers of OA
suggested that the time allotted to speaking in the ir lessons was sufficient. At grammar
schools the higher proportion of teachers would app reciate more time available for speaking
activities.

– 97 – Teachers
50%
36% 14% 0% audio-lingual
drills
dialogue
practice
controlled
language
games
other activities QUESTION 4: When “practising” speaking with your st udents – which do you prefer
(or use more often) – accuracy practice or fluency practice?

a) accuracy practice more than 60% of the time devo ted to speaking (e.g. drills, question and
answer practice, dialogue practice…)
b) fluency practice more than 60% of the time devot ed to speaking (e.g. discussion, role-play,
improvisation, information-gap activities, problem- solving tasks …)
c) accuracy and fluency practice in about the same proportion

64% of the teachers reported that there was about t he same proportion of accuracy and
fluency practice within speaking in their lessons. About a third of the teachers (29%) claimed
that fluency-based tasks prevailed in their teachin g. Only 7% of the teachers acknowledged a
higher proportion of accuracy activities within spe aking.
Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
7%
29%
64% a)
b)
c)
00,5 11,5 22,5 33,5 4
GrS A GrS B OA SS a)
b)
c)

QUESTION 5: What activities do you use most often i n accuracy practice?

Summary
A half of the teachers are in favour of
audio-lingual drills. A third (36%) prefer
dialogue practice as a form of accuracy-
based tasks. None of the teachers
mentioned using any other type of
accuracy activities in teaching speaking.

– 98 – QUESTION 6: What activities do you prefer in fluenc y practice?

Summary
50% of the teachers use discussion in
fostering their students’ speaking skill.
29% incline towards information-gap
activities or problem-solving tasks.
The rest of the teachers (21%) make use
of role-play and improvisation. Again,
none of them referred to any other type
of fluency exercise.

QUESTION 7: What is the most efficient “technique” in making your students speak?

Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
7%
86% 7% group-work
pair-work
students
working as
individuals 00,5 11,5 22,5 33,5 4
GrS A GrS B OA SS group-work
pair-work
students
working as
individuals

There is general agreement among the teachers in th e question of the most efficient
“technique” for making their students speak. The re sults unambiguously confirm the position
of pair-work as the most successful “tool”. 7% fav our group-work, 7% believe that students
are most willing to speak when they speak for thems elves, i.e. as individuals.

Teachers
50%
21% 29% 0% discussion
role-play,
improvisation
info-gap
activities,
problem-
solving tasks
other activities

– 99 – QUESTION 8: Do you speak only English in your lesso ns?

a) I speak only English b) I sometimes use Czech ( esp. when the
instruction is complex, students do not
understand…)
c) I speak Czech when giving instructions d) I spea k Czech when explaining new
grammar

Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
0%
36%
0% 64% a)
b)
c)
d)
00,5 11,5 22,5 3
a) b) c) d) GrS A
GrS B
OA
SS

Almost two thirds of the teachers (64%) use the mot her tongue when explaining new
grammar. 36% “switch” to Czech when students are no t able to follow their speech or the
instruction is rather complex. None of them opts fo r a strict use of English in all cases.

QUESTION 9: What is your students’ attitude towards speaking? How do they react
during speaking activities?

a) they generally like speaking activities + they a re active with prompt reactions
b) they generally like speaking activities + they a re not so prompt in their reactions
c) they do not especially like speaking activities + but their speaking skill is sufficient
(satisfactory)
d) they do not especially like speaking activities + their speaking skill is poor

– 100 – Teachers
86% 14%
a)
b) Summary
More than a half of the teachers (57%) assume that their students, though not too prompt in
their reactions, generally like speaking activities . Almost a third of the teachers (29%) assess
their students’ attitude to speaking as less favour able, but students’ oral skills as “sufficient”.
Once again, only the teachers of the grammar school A share the same opinion.
Teachers
7%
57% 29% 7%
a)
b)
c)
d)
00,5 11,5 22,5 3
a) b) c) d) GrS A
GrS B
OA
SS

QUESTION 10: How secure or self-confident do you – yourself feel about speaking? Are
you able to cope orally with different situations?

a) my speaking skill is excellent – I am able to co mmunicate in a variety of different situations
b) during my studies I did not have the opportunity to develop my speaking skill in its whole
range

Summary
The majority of the teachers (86%)
assessed their speaking skill as excellent.
Only 14% of teachers acknowledged that
they had not had the opportunity to
develop their oral skills in their whole
range.

– 101 – QUESTION 11: Do you develop further your speaking s kill? If so, note down how, please.

Summary Teachers – individual schools
Teachers
79% 21%
Yes, I do.
No, I don't.
00,5 11,5 22,5 3
GrS A GrS B OA SS Yes, I do.
No, I don't.

79% of the teachers reported that they developed th eir oral skills in other ways outside the
classroom. However, 21% admitted that they did not foster their speaking skill any further.
The ways in which the former group develops their s kills are recorded in the chart below.

Table 9.10: Results-teachers

Out of the total number of 14 teachers, 11 of them further develop their speaking skill. Some of them noted down
more than one way in which they develop or promote their speaking skill. However, some of the teachers who
circled the positive answer did not write how they develop their speaking skill.

QUESTION 12: Are you familiar with some new developments or tre nds in teaching
speaking? If so, note your source of information do wn, please.

Out of the total number of 14 teachers only 3 of th em filled in the answer for the question 12. In al l
the three cases they noted down “further teacher tr aining”. In one case “other materials for teachers”
were mentioned. Question 11 Grammar
school A Grammar
school B Obchod.
akademie SS Soc.-
spravni
1 communicating with foreigners in E 1 2 0 0
2 communicating with teachers
from partner schools in E 1 0 0 0
3 communicating with students in E 0 1 0 0
4 reading texts in E 1 1 1 2
5 listening to E TV and radio
broadcasting 1 0 1 1
6 involvement in “Comenius project” 1 0 0 0
7 staying abroad temporarily (in GB) 0 0 1 0

– 102 – Chapter 10
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

In the previous chapter the results that emerged fr om the research were presented and
analysed. In Chapter 10 the results, both the stude nts’ and teachers’, are evaluated and their
interpretation attempted. The chapter is divided in two parts. The first part deals with the
students’ motivation and attitudes to learning Engl ish. Speaking skills in language teaching
constitute the focus of the second part.

10.1 Students’ motivation and attitudes to learning English

A great proportion of students of all schools, in b oth age groups, responded that they learned
English because nowadays it is important to be able to speak a foreign language. This demand
is connected with the position of English as an int ernational language. Speakers of English, in
their opinion, are able to communicate and be under stood almost in all situations and places
all over the world. A frequent students’ answer was that they had to learn English since it
forms one of the obligatory subjects in the schools ’ curriculum. These results suggest that
students’ motivation for learning English arises, i n a large extent, from external stimuli, i.e.
the requirements of their school and demands of the contemporary society in general. Thus,
the students’ motivation, in its prevailing part, c an be characterized as extrinsic. A smaller
percentage of students than in the previous case st ated that they were interested in English and
languages as such. The reason for learning English that recurred in students’ responses was
that they would need English in their future lives, e.g. in their university studies, in their
future profession, when working or travelling abroa d. In short, they need English in order to
extend their future opportunities. Upon scanning th e results, it becomes apparent that the
reason connected to extending future opportunities gains in prominence within the older
students’ responses. The students’ increasing aware ness and reflecting on the future
possibilities, e.g. studies or career orientation, may account for this fact. It may be concluded
that in general the students’ motivation for learni ng English is extrinsic. However, there may
be the intrinsic motivation, arising from a genuine interest in English, detected in a smaller
proportion of students. The stimulus for learning E nglish in order to extend future
opportunities may be classified as belonging to ext rinsic category of motivation.

– 103 – Littlewood draws a distinction between “integrative ” and “instrumental” 7 motivation (57).
The previously mentioned case would then fall withi n instrumental type of motivation as
students perceive the ability to speak English as a n “instrument” for achieving their future
goals. The two kinds of motivation do not exclude e ach other as Littlewood remarks, “most
learners are motivated by a mixture of integrative and instrumental reasons” (57).

The response of the greatest proportion of students , with the exception of the younger students
of OA and SS, was that they exploited an opportunit y when it came up. About a fifth of the
younger and also older GrS students responded posit ively. They actively seek opportunities to
use English. On the contrary, 44% of the younger an d 22% of older students of technical
schools admitted that they did not seek or exploit opportunities to use English at all. At
grammar schools 22% of the younger learners acknowl edged no effort in this respect either.
However, there is positive progress within the resu lts of the older GrS students as none of
them opted for the negative possibility. A language provides a means of communication. Thus
a person is most likely to be motivated for learnin g a second language if he feels a strong
communicative need for it (Littlewood 1990 53). Sin ce English is not used for communicating
inside “our community” but rather for external cont acts, the students may not perceive a
communicative need for English very clearly. This a ssumption may account for a
considerable number of students reporting no effort in seeking opportunities to use English.

A half of the students of technical schools in both age categories and a half of the younger
GsS students are quite interested in English-speaki ng community, though admitting that their
knowledge of English-speaking environment is quite poor. 56% of the older GrS students
adopted a positive attitude. Nonetheless, quite a h igh number of students (33% of the younger
GrS students, 44% of the younger and 37% of older s tudents of OA and SS) did not show any
interest in English-speaking community at all. It i s possible that students have not had enough
opportunities and/ or experience within learning si tuations to form any particular attitude to
the English-speaking community. This assumption doe s not exclude the possibility of some

7 Littlewood makes a distinction between “integrativ e” and “instrumental” motivation (1990 53). “A lear ner with
integrative motivation has a genuine interest in the second la nguage community. He wants to learn their
language in order to communicate with them more sat isfactorily and to gain closer contact with them an d their
culture.” Whereas a learner with instrumental motivation “is more interested in how the second l anguage can be
a useful instrument towards furthering other goals, such as gaining a necessary qualification or impro ving
employment prospects” (Littlewood 1990 57).

– 104 – students being simply indifferent or ignorant. Litt lewood comments that positive attitudes 8
towards the second language community may promote a learner’s communicative need in the
sense that the learner will seek more intensive con tact with the speakers of the given language
(1990 55). It is assumed that favourable attitudes in general encourage the success in language
learning (56). However, as the primary aim of langu age learning in Czech classrooms is
presumably not the contact with native speakers of English (but the ability to speak a foreign
language) students’ attitudes to the second languag e community should not exert a great
influence on their motivation for learning.

10.2 Speaking skills in language teaching

The results reveal that students in general attach to speaking a considerable importance.
Within the grammar school students the greatest pro portion of younger as well as older
students assigned to speaking the highest possible importance (i.e. 75%). The second place
with both age groups was occupied by 50% of importa nce in favour of speaking. The students
of secondary technical schools expressed a similar opinion. However, the mutual proportion
was reversed, with the majority of students opting for 50% of importance for speaking. Such a
high “rating” of speaking with students may stem fr om a variety of reasons. The
implementing of communicative approaches in the cur rent ELT may constitute one of them.
Together with the development of views concerning l anguage teaching (which are reflected in
the syllabus and textbook design) communicative dem ands on students increase. Another
possible reason may be connected with the demands o f today’s society where the ability to
speak at least one foreign language means a necessi ty. This “requirement” together with the
position of English as a world language may account for a strong position of speaking within
language learning. A good command of a language is considered an “investment” in a future
life as it may extend one’s opportunities in lookin g for a decent and well-paid job or in further
studies. There may be an influence of “popular” cul ture with songs and movies in English and
English-speaking media (e.g. the internet, TV and r adio channels). Also while travelling or
working abroad a good speaking skill proves to be a great advantage.

8 If a learner adopts a favourable attitude towards the speakers of the language he is learning, his mo tivation may
be reinforced (Littlewood 1990 55). And vice versa, if his attitude is negative, “there may be strong internal
barriers against learning” (55).

– 105 – The teachers ascribed to speaking a comparatively l ower importance than their students. A
third of the teachers (36%) opted for 25% of import ance. Another third acknowledged 50% of
importance for speaking. The difference in the stud ents’ and teachers’ point of view may stem
from the teachers’ professional experience and dema nds of the syllabus. For teachers a good
speaking skill may represent a “product” or a final stage in the thorough language practice
involving grammar practice, learning of vocabulary and features of pronunciation. They
probably perceive speaking in the context of other language skills as constituting a part of a
complete language programme.

The greatest proportion of the grammar school stude nts reported that within their English
lessons 20-25% of the time was devoted to speaking activities. More than a half of the older
students of technical schools marked the same amoun t of time. Among the younger students
the greatest number opted for less than 15% of the total lessons’ time. The teachers’ estimates
were distributed evenly between 25% and 50% of the time allotted to speaking activities. The
slight disproportion between the students’ and teac hers’ estimates may be caused by possible
differences in perceiving of the importance of spea king practice. As students assign to
speaking a greater importance than their teachers, they may feel that not enough attention is
devoted to this area.

The majority of the grammar school students found t he time allocated to speaking
insufficient. The younger students of OA and SS sha red the same opinion as GrS students.
However, more than a half of the older students of OA and SS agreed that there was enough
“speaking” time in their lessons. 64% of the teache rs think that more time is needed for
speaking practice. 36% claimed the opposite. There was agreement among the students and
their teachers within individual schools as far as this question is concerned. The only
exception was OA where all teachers considered the time for speaking to be sufficient.
Interestingly enough, the teachers who marked 50% o f time devoted to speaking for the
previous question (with the exception of OA) assert ed that more time for speaking activities
was needed. In general, the students’ results may r elate to a high “rating” of importance of
speaking and their endeavour to improve their oral skills.

A half of the grammar school students, younger and older, together with the younger students
of OA and SS reported that accuracy-focused tasks p revailed in their speaking practice. The
second most frequent result with these students was the same proportion of accuracy and

– 106 – fluency. With the older students of technical schoo ls the percentage was reversed, with 52%
opting for the same proportion of accuracy and flue ncy and 33% for prevailing accuracy
practice within speaking. The results, if compared to the teachers’ responses, suggest that the
teachers’ and students’ views on this issue do not really correspond. The majority of the
teachers (64%) reported the same proportion of accu racy and fluency in speaking activities.
Almost a third of the teachers (29%) claimed that f luency practice prevailed in their lessons.
However, this claim was not supported by the result s of their students. This incongruity in
results may stem from a different perception of the nature of an activity in terms of what is
accuracy and what is already fluency-oriented activ ity. Moreover, teachers perhaps tend to
exercise more (than less) control over students’ sp eech in an effort to help students express
themselves, or possibly for fear of a lack of disci pline and structure of an activity when
students are left to speak freely.

In the matter of preferences there was broad consen sus among younger and older students
within a school of the same “type”. A half of the g rammar school students in both age groups
preferred fluency practice and at the same time con sidered fluency practice more important to
communication. About a third of GrS students agreed on the greater importance of fluency
practice, but admitted their preference for accurac y practice. The students of OA and SS in
both age groups shared the same opinion within thei r school “type”. The mutual proportion of
the students was opposite to the proportion of gram mar school students. It is interesting that
the majority of students from all the four schools agreed on the prominent position of fluency
practice as far as communication is concerned. It i s possible to presume that the more daring
(presumably extroverted or more ambitious and confi dent) students prefer fluency practice
where they have an opportunity to express themselve s more freely, and to try out how the
items they have learned may be exploited in communi cation. In contrast, it may be argued that
accuracy practice is favoured by students who are n ot so open and perhaps not so confident in
speaking. As accuracy practice gives them a kind of support or shelter, they are not faced with
the challenge of free communication. The former cha racteristic presumably relates more to
grammar school students. Nevertheless, there are al so introverted and less ambitious or less
confident students among grammar school population. And conversely, among technical
schools there are more and less ambitious students, more and less confident speakers.

The greatest proportion of students in both age gro ups within both school types conveyed that
although more practice was necessary for them to fe el confident in speaking they generally

– 107 – liked (enjoyed) speaking activities. Among the youn ger students of GrS and technical schools
there is a numerous group of students (40% and 29% respectively) who neither especially like
speaking activities nor feel confident during speak ing practice. Nonetheless, there is also a
“minority” of students who asserted their preferenc e for oral activities and also their
confidence when speaking. As far as this question i s concerned, the teachers’ assessment of
their students’ attitude towards speaking activitie s matched to the students’ opinion. More
than a half of the teachers (57%), even if they adm it that their students’ reactions are not so
prompt, assume that their students generally like s peaking activities. 29% of the teachers
presume that their students do not especially like speaking activities. However, they assess
their speaking skill as satisfactory. Students’ fee lings concerning speaking may arise from the
complexity of the process of speaking, mainly the p rocessing conditions. Speaking takes place
under the pressure of time. Students may find it di fficult to apply their theoretical knowledge
to practice, i.e. to retrieve all the necessary voc abulary items, grammatical structures etc., to
arrange them into grammatically and semantically co rrect sentences and to process them
while thinking of what to say next and reacting to their interlocutor’s signals. The situation
may be further complicated by the limited linguisti c resources, possible lack of practice and
the reluctance to speak on the part of students.

More than a half of the younger (52%) and 42% of ol der grammar school students claimed
that they were most willing to communicate when the y were speaking in pairs. A high number
of the older (41%) and a quarter (24%) of younger G rS students preferred speaking for
themselves, i.e. as individuals. At secondary techn ical schools a great proportion of students
(48% of the older and 35% of younger students) vote d for pair-work as the most preferable
organization for speaking activities. The second mo st preferable arrangement for speaking
was group-work (36% of the younger and 30% of older students). Among the teachers the
answers were almost uniform with 86% opting for pai r-work, 7% for group-work and the
remaining 7% for individual work. This result runs contrary to the expectation of much-
discussed group-work as the optimum arrangement for informal interaction (as suggested by
Ur 1997 121 or Brumfit 1992 77). However, it may be assumed that the teachers in
nominating pair-work as the most efficient way draw on their teaching experience. Thus it can
be concluded that pair-work holds the position of t he most efficient technique in making
students speak. This claim is further supported by a high proportion of students within both
school types opting for this possibility. This choi ce may be explained by minimum exposure,

– 108 – the least threatening arrangement and more intimate contact during pair-work in comparison
to higher exposure and a more public “character” of group-work and individual performance.

The majority of students (i.e. 51% of the younger a nd 68% of older GrS students together with
67% of the younger and 77% of older students of OA and SS) assessed their speaking skill as
sufficient. In their view, they are able to communi cate in a limited number of situations. There
was also not an insignificant number of students wh o described their speaking skill as poor.
Only a small percentage of students believed that t heir command of the language is excellent.
The reasons for the students’ pessimistic assessmen t of their own oral skills are presumably
similar to the reasons that were suggested above, i .e. the complexity of the process of speaking,
limited language resources, lack of opportunities t o develop and refine oral skills, students’
unwillingness to speak and possible other reasons i ncluding personal reasons, etc.

In comparison of younger to older students within b oth school types, certain progress may be
detected. At grammar schools 40% of the younger stu dents reported further developing of
their oral skills, with the older learners the perc entage increased up to 68%. A similar
situation, though the percentages were in both case s lower (from 26% to 41%), could be
observed at secondary technical schools. It is poss ible that students, as they advance in their
secondary education, come to realize more deeply th e value and importance of a foreign
language to their future lives, i.e. further studie s, a profession. However, this does not have to
be the case with all the students. Some students fu rther develop their oral skills by attending a
language course or individual language lessons with a private teacher. This possibility is
mentioned by a small number of grammar school stude nts. GrS students, in a larger proportion
than in the previous case, reported communicating w ith foreigners (or friends of different
nationalities) either in their “home environment” o r when travelling abroad (on holiday, an
English camp, etc.). The results suggest that stude nts of technical schools in general do not
make use of such opportunities to foster their oral skills. They incline to other possibilities such
as working with PC (the internet: e-mail, chat, bro wsing; PC games) or watching movies in
English. Grammar school students also mentioned wor king with PC (the internet) and watching
movies in English with or without Czech subtitles. It may be concluded that grammar school
students in comparison to students of technical sch ools are more active in their effort of
developing their skills. They are more willing to c reate and exploit active opportunities to foster
their oral skills.

– 109 – CONCLUSION

“Learning to use a language freely and fully is a l engthy and effortful process. Teachers
cannot learn the language for their students. They can set their students on the road,
helping them to develop confidence in their own lea rning powers. Then they must wait
on the sidelines, ready to encourage and assist, wh ile each student struggles and
perseveres with autonomous activity.”
(Rivers and Temperley Preface VII)

It has been mentioned several times throughout the thesis that in the contemporary society the
ability to speak a foreign language represents a ne cessity. The position of English as an
international language may constitute a reason for students to learn this language in particular.
Second language learning, as was repeatedly remarke d, is an intricate process with many
factors pertaining to it. During the long era of EL T development the four language skills stood
out to the teachers’ and learners’ attention. Howev er, the experience suggested that it would
be more feasible to integrate those skills once aga in in a meaningful language teaching
programme. Nonetheless, it is the current methodolo gical practice to treat the skills, at least in
theoretical terms, separately.

Speaking, as one of the four skills, appears to hav e, at least in some respects, a prominent
status. It is the skill a language learner in real- life encounters appreciates most. It is, however,
an indisputable fact that an efficient speaker woul d not be able to communicate without the
three remaining skills. That is why it is necessary that the four skills be included and
interconnected in the framework of English Language Teaching.

It has been assumed, in accordance with recent tren ds, that language should be taught as
communication. Therefore, it would be advisable to reflect not only on the value and
character of oral skills but also on the methods an d techniques which have been used to
pursue the development of these in the current teac hing practice. It may prove helpful to
evaluate the methods and techniques critically with the possibility of modifying and/ or
amending them. The theoretical part of the thesis t hus may serve as an account of current
approaches and views on teaching speaking and at th e same time as a resource or reservoir of
methods and suggestions for teaching oral skills.

– 110 – The research results suggest that in Czech language classrooms there are quite favourable
opportunities for the development of students’ oral skills. All in all, the situation concerning
speaking in Czech language classrooms may be evalua ted as satisfactory. Nonetheless, the
results also indicate that there is still space for improvement in this field. There may be still
more thoughtful consideration devoted to speaking p ractice on the part of both teachers and
students.

The research has revealed apparent incongruity betw een the students’ and teachers’ views
concerning the proportion of accuracy and fluency a ctivities within speaking practice. It has been
acknowledged by the majority of students that accur acy practice takes up most of the time
allotted to speaking. This may result from a differ ent perception of the nature of activities from
the students’ and teachers’ point of view. However, it also signals, though indirectly, that there
is a demand from students for more activities devel oping oral fluency. In general, there has
been agreement between the students and the teacher s as far as the need of a greater amount
of time for speaking practice is concerned. The maj ority of students report that more practice
would be needed for them to feel comfortable and co nfident during speaking activities. This
argument should call the teachers’ attention to spe aking skills in general and also to considering
carefully the question of balance between the two e lements, i.e. two types of speaking activities,
within the framework of language teaching. Together with fostering oral fluency in a greater
extent it would be beneficial to create the ways in which students’ confidence in oral
performance may be built and promoted.

However, a greater part of responsibility rests wit h the students themselves. Above all, is up
to students themselves to reflect upon the reasons for learning the language, to increase their
awareness in terms of the value of the language to their future lives. It is up to them to decide
whether they are willing to seek and create opportu nities to further develop their language
skills. Their teachers may only encourage them to t ake on the responsibility for their own
learning and gradually become more and more autonom ous in their study of the language.

– 111 – BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Allwright, D., and K.M. Bailey. Focus on the Language Classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Brown, D.H. Teaching by Principles – An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy .
London: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
Brown, G., and G. Yule. Teaching the Spoken Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991.
Brumfit, C. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching , the role of accuracy and
fluency . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Brumfit, C.J., and K. Johnson. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching . Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Burns, A., and H. Joyce. Focus on Speaking . Sydney: NCELTR, 1997.
Bygate, M. Speaking . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Byrne, D. Techniques for Classroom Interaction . New York: Longman, 1990.
Cook, G. Discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Council of Europe: Council for Cultural Co-operatio n, Education Committee and Modern
Languages Division: Spole čný evropský referen ční rámec pro jazyky . Olomouc:
Univerzita Palackého, 2002. Translation: Mgr. Jaro slava Ivanová, M.A.; Doc. Alena
Lenochová, CSc.; Mgr. Jana Linková, Mgr. Šárka Šim á čková, PhD.
Grice, P. “Logic and conversation”. In Cole, P., an d J. Morgan. Syntax and Semantics, 3:
Speech Acts . New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Ellis, R. Instructed second language acquisition . Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
Ellis, R. Second Language Acquisition . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991.
Faerch, C., and G. Kasper. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication . London: Longman,
1983.
Hadfield, J., and Ch. Hadfield. Simple Speaking Activities . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999.
Harmer, J. How to teach English . Harlow: Longman House, 2004.

– 112 – Harmer, J. The Practice of English Language Teaching . London: Pearson Education Ltd.,
2001.
Harmer, J. The Practice of English Language Teaching . Harlow: Longman Group UK Ltd.,
1991.
Hedge, T. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom . Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Fillmore, C.J. “On fluency”. In Fillmore, C.J., Kem pler, D., and W. Wang. (eds.): Individual
Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavi our . New York: Academic
Press, 1979.
Keller, E., and S. Warner. Conversation Gambits . Hove: Language Teaching Publications,
1988.
Krashen, S. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisit ion . Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd., 1987.
Littlewood, W. Communicative Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
Littlewood, W. Foreign and Second Language Learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
McKay, S.L. Teaching English as an International Language: Reth inking Goals and
Approaches . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Nolasco, R., and L. Arthur. Conversation . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Nunan, D. “Communicative language teaching: making it work”. In English Language
Teaching Journal , 41/2, p.136-145, 1987.
Nunan, D. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
Nunan, D. Second Language Teaching & Learning . Boston: Heinle& Heinle Publishers,
1999.
Richards, J., Platt, J., and H. Weber. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics . London:
Longman, 1985.
Richards J.C., and T.S. Rogers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Rivers, W. M. Interactive Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996.
Rivers, W., and M. Temperley. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English as a S econd or
Foreign Language . New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

– 113 – Savignon, S. Communicative Competence : Theory and Classroom Practice . Reading, Mass:
Addison Wesley, 1983.
Scrivener, J. Learning Teaching . Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2005.
Sinclair, J., and D. Brazil. Teacher talk . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Skehan, P. Individual differences in second-language learning . Sevenoaks: Edward Arnold,
A division of Hodder & Stoughton Limited, 1990.
Šimoník, O. Úvod do školní didaktiky . Brno: MSD Brno, 2003.
Thornbury, S. “Speaking to learn”. In Hanušová, S., ed. ELT Signposts 2005 Conference
Programme . 1.vyd. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2005.
Tsui, A. “Reticence and anxiety in second language learning”. In Bailey, K. M. & Nunan, D.
(eds.): Voices from the Language Classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Tsui, A. English Conversation . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching – Trainee book . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Ur, P. Discussions that work . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Watcyn-Jones, P. Act English – A Book of Role-plays . London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1978.
Widdowson, H.G. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1990.
Wilkins, D. Second Language Learning and Teaching . London: Edward Arnold, 1974.

Suggested sources of communicative tasks for speaki ng practice:
Golebiowska, A. Getting Students to Talk . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International
(UK) Ltd., 1990.
Klippel, F. Keep Talking . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

– 114 – ONLINE SOUCES

“The Audio-lingual Method”. SIL International. 15 Jan. 2007. <www.sil.org/lingualinks/
LANGUAGELEARNING/WaysToApproacchLanguage
Learning/TheAudioLingualMethod.htm>
Bean, S. “Classroom Management to Promote Learning” . ETR Associates . 19 March 2007.
<www.etr.org/recap/practice/edskills200109.htm>
Bradwell, S. “Dealing with the complexity in Part 2 of the speaking exam at CAE level”.
Developing Teachers.com. 19 March 2007.
<developingteachers.net/articles_tchtraining/speaki ng_sandra1.htm>
“CEF”. Council of Europe . 11 Jan. 2007.
<www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.p df>
“CEF”. Council of Europe . 11 Jan. 2007. <www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE _EN.asp>
Chaudron, C. “Second Language Classrooms. Research on teaching and learning.”
Amazon.com. 10 Jan. 2007.
<www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521339804/ref=sib_dp_pt/ 102-9262357-
9020138#reader-link>
“Communicating inside and outside the classroom”. Oxford University Press . 15 Jan.2007.
<fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/elt/catalogue/0-19-433 522-4-a.pdf>
“Communicative Language Teaching”. SIL International . 15 Jan. 2007.
<www.pnglanguages.org/lingualinks/LANGUAGELEARNING/ WaysToApproacchLa
nguage Learning/CommunicativeLanguageTeaching.htm>
Couhglin, M. “Speaking”. UsingEnglish.com . 19 March 2007.
<www.usingenglish.com/articles/speaking.htm>
“Dell Hymes”. Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia . 15 Jan. 2007.
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Hymes#Influences_on_his _work>
Flick. 10 Jan. 2007. <www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/19 98AETS/f5_8_flick.rtf>
“The Four Stages of the ZPD”. University of Miami .10 Jan. 2007.
<www.education.miami.edu/blantonw/mainsite/Componen tsfromclmer/Components5/
ZPDModelTharpandGallimore.html>
“Goal: Communicative Competence”. NCLRC. The essentials of language teaching .
<www.nclrc.org/essentials/goalsmethods/goal.htm>
Hall, T. “Differentiated Instruction”. CAST. Universal Design for Learning . 19 March 2007.

– 115 – <www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.ht ml>
Mariani, L. “Developing Strategic Competence.” Learning Paths . 19 March 2007.
<www.learningpaths.org/papers/papercommunication.ht m>
Martyniuk, W. “CEF”. Cornell University . 11 Jan. 2007.
<www.lrc.cornell.edu/events/past/2005-2006/martyniu k.doc>
Nunan, D. “Second Language Classroom Research”. ERICDIGESTS.ORG. 10 Jan. 2007.
<www.ericdigests.org/pre-9216/second.htm>
“RVP GV”. Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze . 4 March 2007.
<www.vuppraha.cz/index.php?op=sections&sid=506>
“RVP GV”. Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze . 4 March 2007.
<www.vuppraha.cz/index.php?page=ramcove_vzdelavaci_ programy_-
_pripominkove_rizeni>
“RVP GV ”. Národní ústav odborného vzd ělávání . 4 March 2007.
<www.nuov.cz/index.php?page=vzd_v_cr&s=36>
“RVP GV”. 4 March 2007. <www.rvp.cz/soubor/rvpg_9_1 0_2006.pdf>
Tharp and Gallimore. “The Instructional Conversati on: Teaching and Learning in Social
Activity”. CDL. University of California. 15 Jan. 2007.
<repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1094&content=crede>
Trim, J.L. “Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, A ssessment.” Lingua-European
Languages. 11 Jan. 2007. <lingua.fc-tic.net/languagepolicies. pdf>
van Lier, L. “Analysing Interaction in Second Langu age Classrooms”. 15 Jan. 2007.
<elt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/1 60>
van Lier, L. “The Ecology of Language Learning”. UCDAVIS. University of California.
15 Jan. 2007. <ucclit.ucdavis.edu/leo.cfm>
van Lier, L. “The Ecology of Language Learning & Cl assroom Research”. UTC. 19 March
2007. <www.utc.fr/~untele/2004ppt/vanlier_2004.ppt>
Zhao, S.Y. “Incidental focus on form in teacher-lea rner interaction and learner-learner
interaction”. ScholarlyCommons@AUT . 20 Jan. 2007.
<repositoryaut.lconz.ac.nz/theses/275>

– 116 – APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

A framework for investigating SLA
Second Language Acquisition is the product of many factors pertaining to the learner on the
one hand and the learning situation on the other (E llis 1991 4). The main goals of the study of
SLA are firstly to describe the process of SLA (e.g . the sequence in which a learner acquires
individual language items or rather groups of items ) and secondly to explain why learners
acquire a second language the way they actually do. The second goal involves an examination
of factors, external as well as internal, that play their part in the process of SLA.
According to Ellis the factors considered in SLA ar e:
1 Situational factors,
2 Linguistic input,
3 Learner differences,
4 Learner processes,
5 Linguistic output (Ellis 1991 16).

Add 1. Situational factors
Situational factors influence both the nature of th e linguistic input and the strategies used by
the learner. The situation and the input together c onstitute the linguistic environment in which
learning takes place. Two major types of acquisitio n can be identified in respect of
environmental factors – naturalistic SLA and classr oom SLA. A key issue is the extent to
which the process of SLA is similar or different in the two environments. Within each general
situational type a host of “micro” situations can b e identified, according to who the
interlocutors are, the context of interaction (e.g. a supermarket or a crowded classroom), and
the topic of communication. The linguistic product is likely to vary situationally.

Add 2. Linguistic input
The central issue here is the extent to which the i nput determines the process of SLA. Does it
merely activate the learning process or does it str ucture it? There is now considerable research
to show that native speakers adapt their speech to suit the level of L2 learners they are talking
to. Another important issue, then, is what part the se adaptations play in facilitating learning.

– 117 – Add 3. Learner differences
There is a whole range of learner factors that pote ntially influence the way in which a L2 is
acquired. The key ones are age, aptitude and intell igence, motivation and needs, personality
and cognitive style. Another type of difference lie s in the learner’s L1. The role that the L1
plays in SLA was a dominant issue in much of the re search that took place in the late1960s
and early 1970s. It was motivated by the need to su bmit the Contrastive Analysis hypothesis
to an empirical test.

Add 4. Learner processes
Learner processes may be cognitive or linguistic. C ognitive learner processes can be divided
into three categories – learning strategies are use d to internalize new L2 knowledge;
production strategies are the means by which the le arner utilizes his or her existing
knowledge; and communication strategies are employe d when there is a hiatus caused by the
need to communicate a message for which the learner lacks L2 resources. These strategies are
general in nature and mediate between the linguisti c input and the language the learner
produces. Linguistic processes involve universal pr inciples of grammar with which the learner
is innately endowed. They provide the learner with a starting point. The task is then to scan
the input to discover which rules of the target lan guage are universal and which are specific.

Add 5. The linguistic output
Language-learner language is highly variable, but i t is also systematic. The learner uses his or
her knowledge of the L2 in predictable ways, but no t in the same way in every context. The
linguistic output is developmental. It changes as t he learner gains more experience of the
language. One possibility that has received a lot o f attention is that there is a “natural” order
of acquisition. That is, that all learners pass alo ng a more or less invariable route. The
linguistic output is the main source of information about how a learner acquires a L2. In
particular the errors that learners make give cues concerning the strategies they employ to
handle the joint task of learning and using a L2.

In order to account for the complexity of SLA, it i s necessary to consider all the factors
discussed above. They are all interrelated. A theor y of SLA is an attempt to show how input,
internal processing, and linguistic output are rela ted. (Ellis 1991 16-18).

– 118 – APPENDIX II

THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR
LANGUAGES

In the words of the Intergovernmental Symposium hel d in Rüschlikon, Switzerland
November 1991, on the initiative of the Swiss Feder al Government, on: “Transparency and
Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objective s, Evaluation, Certification”(CEF 5):

1. A further intensification of language learning a nd teaching in member countries is
necessary in the interest of greater mobility, more effective international communication
combined with respect for identity and cultural div ersity, better access to information, more
intensive personal interaction, improved working re lations and a deeper mutual
understanding.
2. To achieve these aims language learning is neces sarily a life-long task to be promoted and
facilitated throughout educational systems, from pr e-school through to adult education.
3. It is desirable to develop a Common European Fra mework of reference for language
learning at all levels, in order to:

/square4 promote and facilitate co-operation among educati onal institutions in different countries;
/square4 provide a sound basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications;
/square4 assist learners, teachers, course designers, examin ing bodies and educational
administrators to situate and co- ordinate their efforts.

1.1 The Common European Framework
The Common European Framework provides a common bas is for the elaboration of language
syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, te xtbooks, etc. across Europe. It describes in
a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language
for communication and what knowledge and skills the y have to develop so as to be able to
act effectively. The description also covers the cu ltural context in which language is set. The
Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured
at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis.

The Common European Framework is intended to overco me the barriers to communication
among professionals working in the field of modern languages arising from the different
educational systems in Europe. It provides a means for educational administrators, course
designers, teachers, teacher trainers and examining bodies, etc., to reflect on their current
practice, with a view to situating and co-ordinatin g their efforts and to ensuring that they meet the

– 119 – real needs of the learner for whom they are respons ible. By providing a common basis for the
explicit description of objectives, content and met hods, the Framework will enhance the
transparency of courses, syllabuses and qualificati ons, thus promoting international co-operation
in the field of modern languages. The provision of objective criteria for describing language
proficiency will facilitate the mutual recognition of qualifications gained in different learning
contexts, and accordingly will aid European mobilit y (CEF 1).

The uses of the Framework include:
The planning of language learning programmes in ter ms of:
– their assumptions regarding prior knowledge, and their articulation with earlier learning, particula rly
at interfaces between primary, lower secondary, upp er secondary and higher/ further education;
– their objectives;
– their content.

The planning of language certification in terms of :
– the content syllabus of examinations;
– assessment criteria, in terms of positive achieve ment rather than negative deficiencies.

The planning of autonomous learning including:
– raising the learner’s awareness of his or her pre sent state of knowledge;
– self-setting of feasible and worthwhile objectiv es;
– selection of materials;
– self-assessment (CEF 6).

A comprehensive, transparent and coherent frame of reference for language learning,
teaching and assessment must relate to a very gener al view of language use and learning.
Any form of language use and learning could be desc ribed as follows:

Language use, embracing language learning, comprise s the actions performed by persons who as
individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences , both general and in particular
communicative language competences . They draw on the competences at their disposal in
various contexts under various conditions and under various constraints to engage in language
activities involving language processes to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in
specific domains , activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out the
tasks to be accomplished. The monitoring of these action s by the participants leads to the
reinforcement or modifications of their competences . (CEF 9)

– 120 – 1.2 The user/learner’s competences
In order to carry out the tasks and activities requ ired to deal with the communicative
situations in which they are involved, users and le arners draw upon a number of competences
developed in the course of their previous experienc e. In return, participation in
communicative events (including, of course, those e vents specifically designed to promote
language learning) results in the further developme nt of the learner’s competences, for both
immediate and long-term use. All human competences contribute in one way or another to
the language user’s ability to communicate and may be regarded as aspects of
communicative competence. It may however be useful to distinguish those less closely
related to language from linguistic competences mor e narrowly defined (CEF 101).

Competences are defined as “the sum of knowledge, s kills and characteristics that allow a person to
perform actions” (CEF 9). “General competences are those not specific to language, but which are
called upon for actions of all kinds, including lan guage activities”. Communicative language
competences are described as “those which empower a person to act using specifically linguistic
means” (9).

Ability to use/learn language is based on the follo wing Competences (Martyniuk):

1) General competences of a language user/learner
i. Knowledge (savoir)
ii. Skills and know-how (savoir-faire)
iii. Existential competence (savoir-être)
iv. Ability to learn (savoir-apprendre)

2) Communicative language competences of a language user/learner
i. Linguistic
ii. Pragmatic
iii. Sociolinguistic

Add 2) Communicative language competences
For the realisation of communicative intentions, us ers/learners bring to bear their general
capacities as detailed above together with a more s pecifically language-related communicative
competence. Communicative competence is this narrow er sense has the following components:
• linguistic competences;
• sociolinguistic competences;
• pragmatic competences (CEF 108).

– 121 – 1.2.2.1 Linguistic competences
No complete, exhaustive description of any language as a formal system for expression of
meaning has ever been produced. Language systems ar e of great complexity and the
language of a large, diversified, advanced society is never completely mastered by any of its
users. Nor could it be, since every language is in continuous evolution in response to the
exigencies of its use in communication. Most descri ptive linguists are now content to codify
practice, relating form and meaning, using terminol ogy which diverges from traditional
practice only where it is necessary to deal with ph enomena outside the range of traditional
models of description. This is the approach adopted in the Framework (the section 4.2). It
attempts to identify and classify main components o f linguistic competence defined as the
knowledge of, and ability to use, the formal resour ces from which well-formed, meaningful
messages may be assembled and formulated. The schem e that follows aims only to offer as
classificatory tools some parameters and categories which may be found useful for the
description of linguistic content and as a basis fo r reflection. Here, we distinguish:
• lexical competence
• grammatical competence
• semantic competence
• phonological competence
• orthographic competence
• orthoepic competence (CEF 109).
Progress in the development of a learner’s ability to use linguistic resources can be scaled
and is presented in that form below as appropriate.

1.2.2.2 Sociolinguistic competence
Sociolinguistic competence is concerned with the kn owledge and skills required to deal with
the social dimension of language use. As was remark ed with regard to sociocultural
competence, since language is a sociocultural pheno menon, much of what is contained in the
Framework, particularly in respect of the sociocult ural, is of relevance to sociolinguistic
competence. The matters treated here are those spec ifically relating to language use and not
dealt elsewhere: linguistic markers of social relat ions; politeness conventions; expressions of
folk-wisdom; register differences; and dialect and accent (CEF 118).

– 122 – 1.2.2.3 Pragmatic competences
Pragmatic competences are concerned with the user/l earner’s knowledge of the principles
according to which messages are:
a) organised, structured and arranged (“discourse c ompetence”);
b) used to perform communicative functions (“functi onal competence”);
c) sequenced according to interactional and transac tional schemata (“design
competence”) (CEF 123).

1.3 Common Reference Levels of Language Proficiency
One of the aims of the Framework is to help partner s to describe the levels of proficiency
required by existing standards, tests and examinati ons in order to facilitate comparisons
between different systems of qualifications. For th is purpose the Descriptive Scheme and
Common Reference Levels have been developed. Betwee n them they provide a conceptual
grid which users can exploit to describe their syst em (CEF 21).
It seems that an outline framework of six broad lev els gives an adequate coverage of the
learning space relevant to European language learne rs for these purposes (CEF 23):

/square4 Breakthrough, corresponding to what Wilkins in his 1978 proposal labelled
“Formulaic Proficiency” , and Trim in the same publication 9 “Introductory” .
/square4 Waystage, reflecting the Council of Europe content specifica tion.
/square4 Threshold, reflecting the Council of Europe content specifica tion.
/square4 Vantage, reflecting the third Council of Europe specificati on, a level described as
“Limited Operational Proficiency” by Wilkins, and “adequate response to situations
normally encountered” by Trim.
/square4 Effective Operational Proficiency which was called “Effective Proficiency” by Trim,
“Adequate Operational Proficiency” by Wilkins, and represents an advanced level of
competence suitable for more complex work and study tasks.
/square4 Mastery (Trim: “comprehensive mastery” ; Wilkins: “Comprehensive Operational
Proficiency” ), corresponds to the top examination objective in the scheme adopted by
ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe). I t could be extended to include
the more developed intercultural competence above t hat level which is achieved by
many language professionals.

9 Trim, J.L.M. 1978 Some Possible Lines of Development of an Overall St ructure for a European Unit Credit
Scheme for Foreign Language Learning by Adults , Council of Europe.

– 123 – These six levels are respectively higher and lower interpretations of the classic division into
basic, intermediate and advanced. Some of the names given to Council of Europe
specifications for levels have proved resistant to translation (e.g. Waystage, Vantage ). The
scheme therefore proposed to adopt a “hypertext” br anching principle, starting from an initial
division into three broad levels – A, B and C:

A B C
Basic User Independent User Proficient User
/ \ / \ / \
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
(Breakthrough) (Waystage) (Threshold) (Vantage) (Effective (Mastery)
Operational
Proficiency)
Figure 1: (CEF 23)

1.3.1 Presentation of Common Reference Levels
The establishment of a set of common reference poin ts in no way limits how different sectors
in different pedagogic cultures may choose to organ ise or describe their system of levels and
modules. It is also to be expected that the precise formulation of the set of common reference
points, the wording of the descriptors, will develo p over time as the experience of member
states and of institutions with related expertise i s incorporated into the description (CEF 23).
It is also desirable that the common reference poin ts are presented in different ways for
different purposes. For some purposes it will be ap propriate to summarise the set of proposed
Common Reference Levels in single holistic paragrap hs, as shown in Table 1. Such a simple
“global” representation will make it easier to comm unicate the system to non-specialist users
and will also provide teachers and curriculum plann ers with orientation points (CEF 24).

In order to orient learners, teachers and other use rs within the educational system for some
practical purposes, however, a more detailed overvi ew is likely to be necessary. Such an
overview can be presented in the form of a grid sho wing major categories of language use at
each of the six levels. The example in Table 2 (see below) is a draft for a self-assessment
orientation tool based on the six levels. It is int ended to help learners to profile their main
language skills, and decide at which level they mig ht look at a checklist of more detailed
descriptors in order to self-assess their level of proficiency (CEF 25).

– 124 – Table 1: Global scale (CEF 24)

C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise
information from different spoken and written sourc es, reconstructing arguments and
accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express hi m/herself spontaneously, very
fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shade s of meaning even in more complex
situations. Proficient User C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer te xts, and recognise implicit
meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spont aneously without much obvious
searching for expressions. Can use language flexibl y and effectively for social,
academic and professional purposes. Can produce cle ar, well-structured, detailed text
on complex subjects, showing controlled use of orga nisational patterns, connectors and
cohesive devices.
B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on bo th concrete and abstract topics,
including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a
degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regula r interaction with native speakers
quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide
range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topi cal issue giving the advantages and
disadvantages of various options. Independent User B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard in put on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise
whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple
connected text on topics, which are familiar, or of personal interest. Can describe
experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions a nd briefly give reasons and
explanations for opinions and plans.
A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expres sions related to areas of most
immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and f amily information, shopping, local
geography, employment). Can communicate in simple a nd routine tasks requiring a
simple and direct exchange of information on famili ar and routine matters. Can
describe in simple terms aspects of his/her backgro und, immediate environment and
matters in areas of immediate need. Basic User A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expression s and very basic phrases aimed at
the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can i ntroduce him/herself and others and
can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people
he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other
person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

– 125 – Table 2: Self-assessment grid (CEF 26-27)
Reception Interaction Production
Listening Reading Spoken Interaction Written Interaction Spoken Production
Written Production
C2 I have no difficulty in
understanding any kind of
spoken language, whether
live or broadcast, even
when delivered at fast
native speed, provided I
have some time to get
familiar with the accent. I can read with ease
virtually all forms of
the written language,
including abstract,
structurally or
linguistically complex
texts such as manuals,
specialised articles and
literary works. I can take part effortlessly in
any conversation or discussion
and have a good familiarity
with idiomatic expressions and
colloquialisms. I can express
myself fluently and convey
finer shades of meaning
precisely. If I do have a
problem I can backtrack and
restructure around the
difficulty so smoothly that
other people are hardly aware
of it. I can present a clear,
smoothly-flowing
description or argument in
a style appropriate to the
context and with an
effective logical structure
which helps the recipient to
notice and remember
significant points. I can write clear,
smoothly flowing text
in an appropriate style.
I can write complex
letters, reports or
articles, which present a
case with an effective
logical structure, which
helps the recipient to
notice and remember
significant points. I can
write summaries and
reviews of professional
or literary works.
C1 I can understand extended
speech even when it is not
clearly structured and
when relationships are
only implied and not
signalled explicitly. I can
understand television
programmes and films
without too much effort. I can understand long
and complex factual
and literary texts,
appreciating
distinctions of style. I
can understand
specialised articles
and longer technical
instructions, even
when they do not
relate to my field. I can express myself fluently
and spontaneously without
much obvious searching for
expressions. I can use
language flexibly and
effectively for social and
professional purposes. I can
formulate ideas and opinions
with precision and relate my
contribution skilfully to those
of other speakers I can express myself
with clarity and
precision, relating to
the addressee
flexibly and
effecively in an
assured, personal,
style. I can present clear,
detailed descriptions of
complex subjects
integrating sub-themes,
developing particular
points and rounding off
with an appropriate
conclusion I can express myself in
clear, well-structured
text, expressing points
of view at some length.
I can write detailed
expositions of complex
subjects in an essay or a
report, underlining what
I consider to be the
salient issues. I can
write different kinds of
texts in a style
appropriate to the
reader in mind.
B2 I can understand extended
speech and lectures and
follow even complex lines
of argument provided the
topic is reasonably
familiar. I can understand
most TV news and
current affairs
programmes. I can
understand the majority of
films in standard dialect. I can read articles and
reports concerned
with contemporary
problems in which the
writers adopt
particular stances or
viewpoints. I can
understand
contemporary literary
prose. I can interact with a degree of
fluency and spontaneity that
makes regular interaction with
native speakers quite possible.
I can take an active part in
discussion in familiar contexts,
accounting for and sustaining
my views. I can write letters
highlighting the
personal significance
of events and
experiences. I can present clear, detailed
descriptions on a wide
range of subjec ts related to
my field of interest. I can
explain a viewpoint on a
topical issue giving the
advantages and
disadvantages of various
options. I can write clear, detailed
text on a wide range of
subjects related to my
interests. I can write an
essay or report, passing
on information or giving
reasons in support of or
against a particular point
of view.
B1 I can understand the main
points of clear standard
speech on familiar matters
regularly encountered in
work, school, leisure, etc. I
can understand the main
point of many radio or TV
programmes on current
affairs or topics of personal
or professional interest
when the delivery is
relatively slow and clear. I can understand texts
that consist mainly of
high frequency
everyday or job- related
language. I can
understand the
description of events,
feelings and wishes in
personal letters I can deal with most situations
likely to arise whilst travelling in
an area where the language is
spoken. I can enter unprepared
into conversation on topics that
are familiar, of personal interest
or pertinent to everyday life (e.g.
family, hobbies, work, travel and
current events). I can write personal
letters describing
experiences and
impressions. I can connect phrases in a
simple way in order to
describe experiences and
events, my dreams, hopes
& ambitions. I can briefly
give reasons and
explanations for opinions
and plans. I can narrate a
story or relate the plot of a
book or film and describe
my reactions. I can write
straightforward
connected text on
topics, which are
familiar, or of personal
interest.
A2 I can understand phrases
and the highest frequency
vocabulary related to
areas of most immediate
personal relevance (e.g.
very basic personal and
family information,
shopping, local
geography, employment).
I can catch the main point
in short, clear, simple
messages and
announcements I can read very short,
simple texts. I can
find specific,
predictable
information in simple
everyday material
such as
advertisements,
prospectuses, menus
and timetables and I
can understand short
simple personal letters I can communicate in simple
and routine tasks requiring a
simple and direct exchange of
information on familiar topics
and activities. I can handle
very short social exchanges,
even though I can't usually
understand enough to keep the
conversation going myself. I can write short,
simple notes and
messages relating to
matters in areas of
immediate need. I
can write a very
simple personal
letter, for example
thanking someone
for something. I can use a series of
phrases and sentences to
describe in simple terms
my family and other
people, living conditions,
my educational background
and my present or most
recent job I can write a series of
simple phrases and
sentences linked with
simple connectors like
“and”, “but” and
“because”.
A1 I can recognise familiar
words and very basic
phrases concerning
myself, my family and
immediate concrete
surroundings when people
speak slowly and clearly. I can understand
familiar names, words
and very simple
sentences, for
example on notices
and posters or in
catalogues. I can interact in a simple way
provided the other person is
prepared to repeat or rephrase
things at a slower rate of
speech and help me formulate
what I'm trying to say. I can
ask and answer simple
questions in areas of
immediate need or on very
familiar topics. I can write a short,
simple postcard, for
examples sending
holiday greetings. I
can fill in forms with
personal details, for
example entering my
name, nationality and
address on a hotel
registration form. I can use simple phrases
and sentences to describe
where I live and people I
know. I can write simple
isolated phrases and
sentences.

– 126 – 1.3.2 Spoken interaction
In interactive activities the language user acts al ternately as speaker and listener with one or
more interlocutors so as to construct conjointly, t hrough the negotiation of meaning
following the co-operative principle, conversationa l discourse.

Reception and production strategies are employed co nstantly during interaction. There are
also classes of cognitive and collaborative strateg ies (also called discourse strategies and co-
operation strategies) concerned with managing co-op eration and interaction such as
turntaking and turngiving, framing the issue and es tablishing a line of approach, proposing
and evaluating solutions, recapping and summarizing the point reached, and mediating in a
conflict. Examples of interactive activities includ e:
• transactions
• casual conversation
• informal discussion
• formal discussion
• debate
• interview
• negotiation
• co-planning
• practical goal-oriented co-operation

Illustrative scales are provided for:

• Overall spoken interaction
• Understanding a native speaker interlocutor
• Conversation
• Informal discussion
• Formal discussions and meetings
• Goal-oriented co-operation
• Transactions to obtain goods or services
• Information exchange
• Interviewing and being interviewed
(CEF 73).

– 127 – Table 3: Overall spoken interaction (CEF 74)

OVERALL SPOKEN INTERACTION
C2 Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and col loquialisms with awareness of connotative
levels of meaning. Can convey finer shades of meani ng precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy,
a wide range of modification devices. Can backtrack and restructure around a difficulty so smoothly
the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.
C1 Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Has a good command of a
broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readil y overcome with circumlocutions. There is little
obvious searching for expressions or avoidance stra tegies; only a conceptually difficult subject can
hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.
Can use the language fluently, accurately and effec tively on a wide range of general, academic,
vocational or leisure topics, marking clearly the r elationships between ideas. Can communicate
spontaneously with good grammatical control without much sign of having to restrict what he/she
wants to say, adopting a level of formality appropr iate to the circumstances. B2
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontanei ty that makes regular interaction, and sustained
relationships with native speakers quite possible w ithout imposing strain on either party. Can
highlight the personal significance of events and e xperiences, account for and sustain views clearly b y
providing relevant explanations and arguments.
Can communicate with some confidence on familiar ro utine and non-routine matters related to his/her
interests and professional field. Can exchange, ch eck and confirm information, deal with less routine
situations and explain why something is a problem. Can express thoughts on more abstract, cultural
topics such as films, books, music etc. B1
Can exploit a wide range of simple language to deal with most situations likely to arise whilst
travelling. Can enter unprepared into conversation of familiar topics, express personal opinions and
exchange information on topics that are familiar, o f personal interest or pertinent to everyday life ( e.g.
family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).
Can interact with reasonable ease in structured sit uations and short conversations, provided the other
person helps if necessary. Can manage simple, routi ne exchanges without undue effort; can ask and
answer questions and exchange ideas and information on familiar topics in predictable everyday
situations. A2
Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiri ng a simple and direct exchange of information
on familiar and routine matters to do with work and free time. Can handle very short social
exchanges but is rarely able to understand enough t o keep conversation going of his/her own accord.
A1 Can interact in a simple way but communication is t otally dependent on repetition at a slower rate of
speech, rephrasing and repair. Can ask and answer s imple questions, initiate and respond to simple
statements in areas of immediate need or on very fa miliar topics.

– 128 – APPENDIX III

Framework Educational Programme for grammar schools
A significant document concerning secondary educati on in the Czech Republic was issued in
2004. It is called „Rámcový vzd ělávací program pro gymnaziální vzd ělávání“ (RVP pro GV).
It was elaborated by VUP 10 in Prague. The document is obligatory for all gram mar schools. It
provides a framework for the main areas of educatio n. It defines the main areas of education
in terms of its content and describes “expected out comes” that a student is supposed to
achieve before completing this stage (“RVP GV”. Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze .).
Based on this document, each school elaborates its own educational programme in accordance
with specific educational objectives of the school and its learners’ needs. Within the area of
language education, namely the first and second for eign language, the document draws on the
Common European Framework of Reference for Language s (see Appendix II).

The objectives of foreign language learning are formulated as follows (“RVP GV”.):
The aim of foreign language learning is for student s to develop communicative competence in
the given language, to develop and refine the abili ty to manage spoken performances and
produce written texts in the given language. In the contemporary society the ability to speak a
foreign language constitutes a necessity in global as well as personal terms. This ability
promotes communication at international and also in terpersonal level. It facilitates an access
to information. It promotes the mobility and orient ation of an individual in the world.

In foreign language learning the emphasis has been laid on the further development and
refining of students’ communicative competence so t hat they are capable of communicating
on a range of topics, establishing relationships an d developing understanding and respect for a
different culture and habits of its people.

The education in a foreign language builds on and e xtends the knowledge and skills acquired
in the previous/ lower stage of education. The leve l of language proficiency at the beginning
of secondary education is expected to be correspond ing to A2 level of the CEFR and aims to
achieve B2 level of the CEFR. In case of an “additi onal” foreign language, the proficiency

10 “VUP” stands for Výzkumný Ústav Pedagogický, an in stitution working in exploration and development in
the pedagogical field.

– 129 – level at the beginning of secondary education is ex pected to correspond to A1 level and aims
to achieve B1 level of the CEFR.

Foreign language learning
Within the educational area of “Language and Langua ge Communication”, foreign
languages , the document delimits the educational content of the area of foreign languages and
describes expected outcomes for individual types of skills, that is, receptive, productive and
interactive skills. The expected outcomes of produc tive and interactive skills relating to
speaking will be now defined (“RVP GV”. Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze .):

Productive skills: expected outcomes
SPEAKING:
A student:
/head2right is able to express his opinion spontaneously and fl uently in a comprehensible and
grammatically correct way;
/head2right is able to reproduce orally an authentic written te xt or a stretch of spoken language using
vocabulary and structures corresponding to a more c omplex level of language;
/head2right is able to deliver a speech on a given topic;
/head2right is able to use a wide range of vocabulary to develo p and support his arguments without
reducing the content of an intended message.

Interactive skills: expected outcomes
A student:
/head2right is able to defend his ideas, opinions and attitudes orally;
/head2right is able to react in a spontaneous and grammatically correct way under more demanding
circumstances by using suitable expressions and phr ases;
/head2right is able to speak fluently and in a phonetically cor rect way about both abstract and concrete
topics in less usual situations and “technical” cir cumstances;
/head2right on meeting native speakers, he initiates, sustains and ends a dialogue; he involves in a lively
discussion on various topics.

The education in the area of a foreign language aim s to achieve B2 level of the CEFR.

– 130 – APPENDIX IV

Ulichny gives an example of what such an instructio nal conversation might look like in
practice (see Table 1). The teacher while talking t o learners exploits the opportunities to
incorporate form-focused instruction. The talk itse lf is recorded in the first column, the
correction and “instructional detours” in columns t wo and three.

Conversation Correction/conversational
replay Instruction
T: You were delivering
mail to the
patients?//
K: yah//
T: How many times
did you go//=
K: = no no // the I
should go but I
didn’t go//
T: I was SUPPOSED to
go//
that’s a good one//. I
was SUPPOSED to go
[taps table rhythmically
while repeating]// everyone
A: I was SUPPOSED to
go//
T: again//
C+: I was SUPPOSED to
go//
T: but I couldn’t//. but I
couldn’t=
C-: = but I couldn’t//
T: (ev?) again//
A: but I couldn’t//
………………
T: I was supposed to go
but I DIDN’T//you can
also say but I DIDN’T//
uh-huh [rising
intonation]// because
the baby’s sick//
aah// is the baby still
very sick? // what’s the
matter// ……….
Table 1: The example of instructional conversation (Ulichny in Thornbury 11)

Key: K = Katherine, T = Ms.Towers (teacher), A = me mbers of class and Ms.Towers,, C+ = members of
the class participating chorally, C- = a f ew members of the class, not functioning in unison, // end of
an idea unit, not necessarily a pause, = l atched contributions, no beat between exchange of s peakers

– 131 – APPENDIX V

An example of instructional conversation
This is an extract of a classroom interaction recor ded in an EFL classroom in Barcelona
(Thornbury 2002 14-15).

“Barranking”

S1: What about to go to mountains?
T: What about………?
S1: What about going to mountains, we can do “barr ancking” [Ss laugh]
T: What’s “barrancking”?
S2: Is a sport. 5
T: Yes, but what do you do exactly?
S3: You have a river, a small river and [gestures]
T: Goes down?
S3: Yes, as a cataract
T: OK, a waterfall [writes it on the board] What’s a waterfall, Manel? 10
Can you give me an example? A famous waterfall [draws]
S1: Like Niagara?
T: OK. So what do you do with the waterfall?
S4: You go down.
T: What? In a boat?
S4: No, no, with a …… ?como se dice cuerda? 15
S3: Cord.
T: No, rope, a cord is smaller, like at the window , look [points]
S4: Rope, rope, you go down rope in waterfall.
S2: You wear …. “black clothes” [mispronounced]
T: Black clothes. Repeat [students repeat] … […] T his sound dangerous, 20
is it dangerous?
Ss: No no
S3: Is in summer, no much water
T: Sorry?
S3: Poco…. poco…. little water, river is not stron g
T: OK… and you have done this? What’s it called in Spanish? 25
S4: Barranquismo. In English?

– 132 – T: I don’t know. I’ll have to ask somebody.
S2: It is good, you come? ?Com es diu? Let’s go to gether.
T: I don’t think so [laughs]
S4: Yes, yes, you come, we can go in summer 30
T: Well, in the summer, not now, it’s too cold
Ss: No no

Comments
The extract demonstrates that it is possible for cl assroom conversation to achieve the
contingency of natural talk, and at the same time t o incorporate/ insert an explicit instructional
component. The interaction is controlled and manage d by students. They nominate the topics
of their choice (see turn 3). There are a number of referential questions addressed to students
by the teacher (turns 4, 6, 12, 14, 20, 25). Studen ts also ask questions (turns 15, 26, 28). The
requests for clarification can be found (turns 8, 1 4, 23). Finally, there are instructional detours
inserted in the conversation (turns 10, 17, 20). Th e teacher supports the talk by providing the
verbal scaffolding. The talk is not structured arou nd the typical IRF sequence but follows the
pattern found in naturally occurring conversation. (Thornbury 15)

– 133 – APPENDIX VI
Questionnaire
for students

For each question, circle, please, only one answer that is true for your preferences or your learning .
(For a few questions you are asked to write your re asons or preferences down .)

1. Why are you learning English? Give your reasons, please.

…………………………………………… …………………………………………… …………………………………………… ….
…………………………………………… …………………………………………… …………………………………………… ….

2. Do you seek* opportunities to use English?

a) Yes, I do. I actively seek opportunities to b) W hen an opportunity comes up, I make use
use English. of it.
c) No, I don’t.

3. What is your attitude towards English-speaking c ommunity?

a) I am interested in English-speaking b) I am quite interested, but I do not know much
community – its life-style, social about En glish-speaking community
conventions, culture
c) I am not interested in English-speaking
community

4. How important is, in your opinion, speaking in l earning English in comparison to other skills
(listening, reading, writing)?

a) less than 15% of importance in b) about 25% of importance
comparison to other skills (L,R and W)
c) 50% of importance d) 75% of importance

5. How much time is devoted to ‘practising’ speakin g in your English lessons?

a) less than 15% of the total b) 20-25% of the tim e
lessons’ time
c) 50% of the time d) more than 50% of the time

6. Do you think the amount of time devoted to speak ing is sufficient ** ** ** ** ?

a) yes b) no – more time is needed

* seek – hledat, vyhledávat, ** sufficient – dostat e čný, dosta čující

– 134 – 7. Which type of activities is used in your English lessons more often – accuracy or fluency
practice?

a) accuracy practice more than 60% of the time b) fluency practice more than 60% of the time
devoted to speaking (e.g. drills, question and devoted to speaking (e.g. discussion, role-pla y,
answer practice, dialogue practice…) improv isation, information-gap activities,
problem-solving tasks….)
c) accuracy and fluency practice in about
the same proportion

8. Which do you prefer – accuracy practice or fluen cy practice? Which of the two is, in your
opinion, more important to communication?

a) I prefer accuracy practice, I consider accuracy practice more important to communication
b) I prefer fluency practice, I consider fluency pr actice more important to communication
c) I prefer accuracy practice, but I consider fluen cy practice more important to communication
d) I prefer fluency practice, but I consider accura cy practice more important to communication

9. What is your attitude towards speaking activitie s? Do you feel secure and self-confident when
‘practising’ speaking?

a) I like(enjoy) speaking activities + I feel secur e and self-confident when ’practising’speaking
b) I like(enjoy) speaking activities + more practic e would be needed for me to feel secure and self-
confident when practising speaking
c) I do not especially like(enjoy) speaking activit ies + but I feel secure and self-confident when
practising speaking
d) I do not especially like (enjoy) speaking activi ties + I do not feel secure and self-confident when
practising speaking

10. When (in what situation) are you most willing* to speak English?

a) when working(speaking) in groups b) when working (speaking) in pairs
c) when working(speaking) on my own
– as an individual

11. How do you feel about your speaking skill? Are you able to communicate in different
situations?

a) my speaking skill is excellent – I am able to co mmunicate in a variety of different situations
b) my speaking skill is sufficient – I am able to c ommunicate in a limited number of situations
c) my speaking skill is poor

12. Do you develop** your speaking skill outside th e classroom as well? How?

a) Yes, I do. b) No, I don’t.
Note down how, please :………………..
………………………………………….
………………………………………….

* willing – ochotný, ** develop – rozvíjet, rozvino ut

– 135 – APPENDIX VII
Questionnaire
for the teacher

For each question, circle, please, only one answer that is true for your preferences or your teaching .

1. How important is, in your opinion, speaking in t eaching English in comparison to other skills
(listening, reading, writing)?

a) less than 15% of importance in b) about 25% of importance
comparison to other skills (L,R and W)
c) 50% of importance d) 75% of importance

2. How much time do you devote to ‘practising’ spea king in your English lessons?

a) less than 15% of the total b) 20-25% of the tim e
lessons’ time
c) 50% of the time d) more than 50% of the time

3. Do you think the amount of time devoted to speak ing in your lessons is sufficient for your
students?

a) yes b) no – more time is needed

4. When ‘practising’ speaking with your students – which do you prefer (or use more often) –
accuracy practice or fluency practice?

a) accuracy practice more than 60% of the time b) fluency practice more than 60% of the time
devoted to speaking (e.g. drills, question and devoted to speaking (e.g. discussion, role-pla y,
answer practice, dialogue practice…) improv isation, information-gap activities,
problem-solving tasks…)
c) accuracy and fluency practice in about
the same proportion

5. What activities do you use most often in accurac y practice?

a) audio-lingual drill (e.g. question and b) dialo gue practice
answer sequences, repetitions….)
c) controlled language games d) other activities : …………………..
..…………………………………..
( note down, please)

– 136 – 6. What activities do you prefer in fluency practic e?

a) discussion b) role-play, improvisation
c) information-gap activities, d) other activities : ………………………
problem-solving tasks …………………………………………… …………
(note down, please)

7. What is the most efficient ’technique’ in making your students speak?

a) group-work b) pair-work
c) students working as individuals

8. Do you speak only English in your lessons?

a) I speak only English b) I sometimes use Czech (es p. when
the instruction is complex, students
do not understand ….)
c) I speak Czech when giving instructions d) I spea k Czech when explaining new
grammar

9. What is your students’ attitude towards speaking ? How do they react during speaking
activities?

a) they generally like speaking activities + they a re active with prompt reactions
b) they generally like speaking activities + they a re not so prompt in their reactions
c) they do not especially like speaking activities + but their speaking skill is sufficient (satisfact ory)
d) they do not especially like speaking activities + their speaking skill is poor

10. How secure or self-confident do you – yourself feel about speaking? Are you able to cope
orally with different situations?

a) my speaking skill is excellent – I am able to co mmunicate in a variety of different situations
b) during my studies I did not have the opportunity to develop my speaking skill in its whole range

11. Do you develop further your speaking skill? If so, note down how, please.

a) Yes, I do. b) No, I don’t.
Note down how, please :……………….
………………………………………….
………………………………………….

12. Are you familiar with some new developments or trends in teaching speaking? If so, note
your source of information down, please.

…………………………………………… …………………………………………… …………………………………………… ………..
…………………………………………… …………………………………………… …………………………………………… ………..

– 137 – APPENDIX VIII

Distinction between accuracy and fluency practice

Accuracy practice (or pre-communicative activities)
The teacher isolates specific elements of knowledge or skill which compose communicative ability, and provides
the learners with opportunities to practise them se parately.
The aim is to provide learners with a fluent comman d of the linguistic system, without actually requir ing them to
use this system for communicative purposes.
(Littlewood, W.: Communicative Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994. p. 8 5)

Accuracy activities – students practise particular points of language e.g. a particular point of
grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation. The purpose o f accuracy activities is to provide
students with linguistic forms (and perhaps make su re that they understand and are able to use
them in a proper way). Mistakes are corrected consi stently.
Examples of accuracy activities : different types of drill, question and answer pra ctice,
(controlled) language games, dialogue practice.

Fluency practice (or communicative activities)
The learner has to activate and integrate his/her p re-communicative knowledge and skills in order to u se them for
the communication of meanings. S/he is therefore now engaged in practising the total skill of communica tion.
(Littlewood 1994 86)

Fluency activities – students are given the opportunity to use the lan guage they have learnt:
to use it freely, even if they make mistakes. Mista kes are not corrected (perhaps only these
that obstruct understanding).
Examples of fluency activities : discussion, gap-information activities, language games that
encourage students to use language freely, role-pla y, simulations.

– 138 – APPENDIX IX

My name is Markéta Foralová. I am in my 5th year of study of English and Special Education
at the Faculty of Education of the Masaryk Universi ty in Brno. In my diploma thesis I have
decided to survey the methodological field and focu s my attention to one of the four language
skills, namely speaking. There is a research as a p art of the thesis.

I would greatly appreciate your help in this area. I would be very grateful if you could fill in
the enclosed questionnaires. One of them is designe d for your students and the other for you –
the teacher.

Thank you in advance.

Markéta Foralová

– 139 – SUMMARY

The diploma thesis focuses on the methodological fi eld. It deals with one of the language
skills, namely speaking. In the first part of the t hesis the skill of speaking is examined in
theoretical terms. The role and status of speaking in the framework of the current English
Language Teaching is explored and evaluated. The co ncept of communicative competence as
viewed by different methodologists is considered. T he subsequent part is concerned with
spoken interaction in terms of its distinctive feat ures including the interaction management
and processes involved in negotiation of meaning. T he methodology of oral interaction
constitutes the focus of the last part of the theor etical account. Special attention is devoted to
the activities developing oral fluency. The second part of the thesis is reserved for the
research and interpretation of the research results . The main research aim comprised the
examination and evaluation of the position of speak ing in the current English Language
Teaching at the secondary level.

– 140 – RESUMÉ

Diplomová práce se zam ěřuje na oblast metodiky. T ěžišt ěm diplomové práce je jedna z tzv.
„language skills“ (jazykových dovedností), a to mlu vní projev. Úvodní část práce se zabývá
mluvním projevem z hlediska teoretického. Zkoumá ro li a postavení mluvního projevu
v rámci výuky anglického jazyka. Dále se zabývá ko nceptem komunikativní kompetence
tak, jak je nahlížen r ůznými autory. Následující část práce popisuje mluvenou interakci
z hlediska jejích charakteristických rys ů v četn ě řízení (managementu) interakce a proces ů
probíhajících p ři „vyjednávání porozum ění či významu sd ělovaného“. Metodika výuky
mluvního projevu tvo ří základ posledního oddílu teoretické části práce. V rámci metodiky je
věnována zvláštní pozornost aktivitám rozvíjejícím ml uvní fluenci. Praktická část práce se
zabývá výzkumem a interpretací zjišt ěných výsledk ů. Hlavním cílem výzkumu bylo
prozkoumat a zhodnotit sou časné postavení mluvního projevu v rámci výuky angli ckého
jazyka na st ředních školách.