Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-8cg97 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T16:46:33.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve speaking performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2017

Christine C. M. Goh
Christine C. M. Goh*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a personal view of the application of results from three areas of research that I believe are relevant to developing second language speaking in the classroom: task repetition, pre-task planning and communication strategies. I will discuss these three areas in terms of level of research application – where research is not applied well (task repetition), where it is reasonably well applied (pre-task planning), and where it may have been over-applied (communication strategies). For each area I briefly review the relevant research to highlight how teachers can potentially apply the research findings to scaffold learning processes in speaking. I will also suggest how much of the research is getting through to teachers and being taken up in day-to-day teaching of English. I draw mainly on my own extensive experience as a teacher educator for over 20 years working with pre-service English teachers of bilingual students in Singapore schools and in-service teachers attending professional development courses or pursuing Master's degree studies, as well as college English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers from the People's Republic of China receiving postgraduate teaching certification in English language teaching (ELT) and higher degree qualifications in my university each year. I will also include some observations about classroom practice based on a survey of selected course books.

Type
Thinking Allowed
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 247 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal 39.3, 269–280.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J. & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research 15.1, 23–49.Google Scholar
Ang, M. Y. (2000). Developments in the English Language curriculum in Singapore. Teaching of English Language and Literature Journal 16.2, 3–8.Google Scholar
Ang-Aw, H. T. (2010). Rater judgment on the conversation task for ‘O’ level students in Singapore. Master's dissertation. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
Bei, G. X. (2013). Effects of immediate repetition in L2 speaking tasks: A focused study. English Language Teaching 6.1, 11–19.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication strategies. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman, 100–118.Google Scholar
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann, 136–146.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 20–42.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harrow: Pearson Education, 23–48.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2005). Oral second language abilities as expertise. In Johnson, K. (ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 104–127.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 37–74.Google Scholar
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. W. Jr, (ed.), Issues in language testing research. Rowley MA: Newbury House, 333–342.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1.1, 1–47.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. & Goh, C. C. M. (2011). Teaching oral English in higher education: Challenges to EFL teachers. Teaching in Higher Education 16.3, 1–13.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. & Goh, C. C. M. (2014). Teacher knowledge about oral English instruction and teacher profiles: An EFL perspective. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers' Professional Development 18.1, 81–99.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly 3.4, 307–331.Google Scholar
Curriculum Planning and Development Division (2008). English Language Syllabus 2010. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29.1, 55–85.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9.1. 1–19.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman, 210–238.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34.1, 45–63.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18.3, 299–324.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in classroom language tasks. Applied Linguistics 26.3, 402–430.Google Scholar
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research 20.3, 321–340.Google Scholar
Geng, X. & Ferguson, G. (2013). Strategic planning in task-based language teaching: The effects of participatory structure and task type. System 41.1, 982–993.Google Scholar
Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System 28.1, 55–75.Google Scholar
Goh, C.C. M. (2005). Oracy development in literacy-privileged learning environments: Too little, too late? Foley, In J. (ed.), New dimensions in the teaching of oral communication. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 92–110.Google Scholar
Goh, C. C. M. (2007). Teaching speaking in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Goh, C. C. M. & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal 66.3, 327–336.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. (2013). Teaching and researching: Speaking. New York, Routledge.Google Scholar
Jamshidnejad, A. (2011). Functional approach to communication strategies: An analysis of language learners’ performance in interactional discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 15, 3757–3769.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly 47.1, 8–35.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41.3, 829–840.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J. & Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. doi:10.1017/S0272263116000085.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lim, C. S. (2000). The English Language Syllabus 2001: Change and continuity. Teaching of English Language and Literature Journal 16.2, 9–14.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2003). The communicative effectiveness of different types of communication strategy. System 31.3, 331–347.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research Special Issue: Tasks in Language Pedagogy 4.3, 221–250.Google Scholar
Lynch, T & Maclean, J. (2001). ‘A case of exercising’: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, 141–162.Google Scholar
Maleki, A. (2007). Teachability of communication strategies: An Iranian experience. System 35.4, 583–594.Google Scholar
Maybin, J., Mercer, N. & Steirer, B. (1992). ‘Scaffolding’ learning in the classroom. In Norman, K. (ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Curriculum Project. London: Hodder and Stoughton for the National Curriculum Council, London, 186–195.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20.1, 83–108.Google Scholar
Mei, A. & Nathalang, S. (2010). Use of communication strategies by Chinese EFL learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33.3, 110–125.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education (January 2008). More support for school's ‘Teach Less Learn More’ initiatives (Press release). Retrieved from www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/01/more-support-for-schools-teach.php.Google Scholar
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal 89, 76–91.Google Scholar
Nakatani, Y. & Goh, C. (2007). A review of oral communication strategies: Focus on interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives. In Cohen, A. (ed.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 207–227.Google Scholar
Nitta, R. & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing 31.2, 147–175.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21.1, 109–148.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal 86, 1–19.Google Scholar
Rossiter, M. J. I. (2003). It's like a chicken but bigger: Effects of communication strategy in the ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 60.2, 105–121.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Seifoori, Z. & Vahidi, Z. (2012). The impact of fluency strategy training on Iranian EFL learners' speech under online planning conditions. Language Awareness 21.1–2, 101–112.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1.3, 185–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 193–216.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language acquisition. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners' recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics 9.1, 71–96.Google Scholar
Thai, C. & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly 50.2, 369–393.Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bimmel, P. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research 20.3, 300–320.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12.3, 287–301.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & Elder, C. (2010). An investigation of the effective and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly 7.1, 1–24.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Inscoe, R. & Tasker, T. (1997). Communication strategies in an interactional context: The mutual achievement of comprehension. In Kasper, G. & Kellerman, E. (eds.), Communication strategies, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman, 304–322.Google Scholar
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24.1, 1–27.Google Scholar